(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "North Carolina courts : annual report of the Administrative Office of the Courts"

North Carolina State Ubr&r^ 



K13 

|0l-.<?g3/sY K.*«n ]I985 

c ^ ^fartlj (Earalma 

1983- 84 





JWmtal ^Report 

of tlje 

JVommtstrattiie Office of i\\t (Eouris 



The Cover: The Clay County Courthouse in Hayesville, North Carolina, a well- 
preserved example of vernacular Italianate architecture, was completed in 1889. The 
two-story brick structure features a square central tower, bracketed eaves and segmen- 
tal arched windows typical of the Italianate style. Clay County (named after Henry 
Clay of Kentucky) is located in the far western, mountainous region of North Carolina. 



NORTH CAROLINA COURTS 



1983-84 




ANNUAL REPORT 



of the 



ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS 




ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS 

JUSTICE BUILDING 
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 



The Honorable Joseph Branch, Chief Justice 
The Supreme Court of North Carolina 
Raleigh, North Carolina 

Dear Mr. Chief Justice: 

In accord with Section 7A-343 of the North Carolina General Statutes, I herewith transmit the 
Eighteenth Annual Report of the Administrative Office of the Courts, relating to the fiscal year, July 1, 
1983 — June 30, 1984. 

Appreciation is expressed to the many persons who participated in the data reporting, compilation, and 
writing required to produce this annual report. Within the Administrative Office of the Courts, principal 
responsibilities were shared by the Research and Planning Division and the Information Services Division. 
The principal burden of reporting the great mass of trial court data rested upon the offices of the clerks of 
superior court located in each of the one hundred counties of the State. The Clerk of the Supreme Court 
and the Clerk of the Court of Appeals provided the case data relating to our appellate courts. 

Without the responsible work of many persons across the State this report would not have been possible. 



February, 1985 



Respectfully submitted. 



— ) ^/XOL/vvJyl^_j7tlU/^ 



Franklin E. Freeman, Jr. 
Director 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 



Parti 

The 1983-84 Judicial Year in Review 

The 1983-84 Judicial Year in Review 1 

Part II 

Court System Organization and Operations 

Historical Development of the North Carolina Court System 5 

The Present Court System 8 

Organization and Operations in 1983-84 

The Supreme Court 12 

The Court of Appeals 24 

The Superior Courts 32 

The District Courts 35 

District Attorneys 38 

Clerks of Superior Court 41 

Juvenile Services Division 43 

Public Defenders 45 

The N.C. Courts Commission 47 

The Judicial Standards Commission 49 



Part III 
Court Resources 

Judicial Department Finances 

Appropriations 53 

Expenditures , 56 

Receipts 58 

Distribution of Receipts 59 

Cost and Case Data on Representation of Indigents 62 

Judicial Department Personnel 69 

Part IV 

Trial Courts Caseflow Data 

Trial Courts Case Data 73 

Superior Court Division Caseflow Data 77 

District Court Division Caseflow Data , 121 



Tables, Charts and Graphs 

Part II 
Court System Organization and Operations 

Original Jurisdictions and Routes of Appeal in the 

Present Court System 8 

Principal Administrative Authorities for North Carolina 

Trial Courts 11 

The Supreme Court of North Carolina 12 

Supreme Court. Caseload Inventory 14 

Supreme Court, Appeals Filed 15 

Supreme Court, Petitions Filed 15 

Supreme Court, Caseload Types 16 

Supreme Court, Submission of Cases to Decision Stage 17 

Supreme Court, Disposition of Petitions and Other Proceedings 17 

Supreme Court, Disposition of Appeals 18 

Supreme Court, Manner of Disposition of Appeals 19 

Supreme Court, Type of Disposition of Petitions 19 

Supreme Court, Pending Cases 20 

Supreme Court, Appeals Docketed and Disposed of, 

1 978-79— 1 983-84 21 

Supreme Court, Petitions Docketed and Allowed, 

1978-79—1983-84 22 

Supreme Court, Processing Time for Disposed Cases 23 

The Court of Appeals of North Carolina 24 

Court of Appeals, Filings and Dispositions 26 

Court of Appeals, Inventory of Cases Appealed 27 

Court of Appeals, Manner of Disposition of Cases 28 

Court of Appeals, Inventory of Motions and Petitions 29 

Court of Appeals, Filings and Dispositions, 1979 — 1983-84 30 

Map of Judicial Divisions and Districts 31 

Judges of Superior Court 32 

District Court Judges 35 

District Attorneys 38 

Clerks of Superior Court 41 

Chief Court Counselors 44 

Public Defenders 45 

The N.C. Courts Commission 47 

The Judicial Standards Commission 49 

Part III 
Court Resources 

General Fund Appropriations, All State Agencies 

and Judicial Department 53 

General Fund Appropriations, All State Agencies 

and Judicial Department 54 

General Fund Appropriations for Operating Expenses of All 

State Agencies and Judicial Department 55 

General F und Expenditures for Judicial Department Operations 56 

Judicial Department Receipts 58 

Distribution of Judicial Department Receipts 59 

ii 



Tables, Charts and Graphs 

Amounts of Fees, Fines, and Forfeitures Collected by the 

Courts and Distributed to Counties and Municipalities 60 

Cost and Case Data on Representation of Indigents 63 

Mental Hospital Commitment Hearings 64 

Assigned Counsel, Cases and Expenditures 65 

Judicial Department Personnel 69 

Part IV 

Trial Courts Caseflow Data 

Superior Courts, Caseload 78 

Superior Courts, Caseload Trends 79 

Superior Courts, Civil Cases Trends 80 

Superior Courts, Median Ages of Cases 81 

Superior Courts, Civil Cases Inventory 82 

Superior Courts, Civil Cases, Methods of Disposition 86 

Superior Courts, Manner of Disposition 87 

Superior Courts, Ages of Civil Cases 91 

Superior Courts, Inventory of Estates and Special Proceedings 96 

Superior Courts, Trends in Estates and Special Proceedings 1 00 

Superior Courts, Trends in Criminal Cases 101 

Superior Courts, Inventory of Criminal Cases 1 02 

Superior Courts, Methods of Disposition of Criminal Cases 1 06 

Superior Courts, Manner of Disposition of Criminal Cases 107 

Superior Courts, Ages of Criminal Cases Ill 

District Courts, Filings and Dispositions 1 22 

District Courts, Filing and Disposition Trends of All Cases 1 23 

District Courts, Filing and Disposition Trends of Civil Cases 1 24 

District Courts, General Civil and Domestic Relations Cases 1 25 

District Courts, Civil Caseload Inventory 1 26 

District Courts, Methods of Disposition of Civil Cases 1 30 

District Courts, Manner of Disposition of Civil Cases 131 

District Courts, Ages of Civil Cases 135 

District Courts, Civil Magistrate Filings and Dispositions 140 

District Courts, Offenses and Conditions in Juvenile Petitions 142 

District Courts, Adjudicatory Hearings, Juvenile Petitions 146 

District Courts, Trends of Criminal Cases 151 

District Courts, Motor Vehicle Criminal Case Filings and Dispositions 152 

District Courts, Non-Motor Vehicle Criminal Cases, Caseload Inventory 156 

District Courts, Non-Motor Vehicle Criminal Cases, Methods of Disposition 1 60 

District Courts, Non-Motor Vehicle Criminal Cases, Manner of Disposition 161 

District Courts, Ages of Non-Motor Vehicle Criminal Cases 1 65 

Rankings of Judicial Districts In Terms Of Total Caseload Disposed Of, 

Superior Court and District Court Cases 1 70 

Rankings of Counties In Terms Of Total Caseload Disposed Of, 

Superior and District Court Cases 171 



in 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 

in 2012 with funding from 

LYRASIS Members and Sloan Foundation 



http://archive.org/details/northcarolinacou1984nort 



PARTI 



THE 1983-1984 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW 



THE 1983-84 JUDICIAL YEAR IN REVIEW 



This Annual Report on the work of North Carolina's 
Judicial Department is for the fiscal year which began 
July 1, 1983 and ended June 30, 1984. 

The Workload of the Courts 

As set out in more detail in Part II of this Report, case 
filings in the Supreme Court totalled 201 compared with 
209 filed during 1982-83. A total of 541 petitions were 
filed in the Supreme Court, compared with 538 in 1982- 
83; and 69 petitions were allowed compared with 74 in 
1982-83. 

For the Court of Appeals for 1983-84, case filings were 
1,3 14 compared with 1,398 for the 1982-83 year. Petitions 
in 1983-84 totalled 423, compared with 483 during the 
1982-83 year. 

More detailed data on the appellate courts is included 
in Part II of this Annual Report. 

In the superior courts, case filings (civil and criminal) 
decreased by 5.8% to a total of 80,558 in 1983-84, com- 
pared with 85,488 cases in 1982-83. Superior court case 
dispositions also decreased, to a total of 80,290, com- 
pared with 84,797 in 1982-83. As case filings during the 
year exceeded case dispositions, the total number of cases 
pending at the end of the year increased by 268, or 0.7%. 
Operations of the superior courts are summarized in Part 
II of this Report, and detailed information on the case- 
loads in the 100 counties and 34 judicial districts is pre- 
sented in Part IV. 

Not including juvenile proceedings and mental hospital 
commitment hearings, the statewide total of district court 
filings (civil and criminal) during 1983-84 was 1,450,179, 
an increase of 4,608 cases (0.3%>) from 1982-83 filings of 
1,445,571 cases. The only area of the district court case- 
load to register an increase in 1983-84 over the previous 
fiscal year was the motor vehicle criminal case category, 
which had total filings of 768,403 cases in 1983-84, an 
increase of 5.5% over the 728,517 cases filed in 1982-83. 
There was a 5.5%) drop in civil case filings from a total of 
316,539 in 1982-83 to 298,996 in 1983-84. Most of this 
decrease was in civil magistrate filings, from 206, 1 63 cases 
in 1982-83 to 194,321 cases in 1983-84. There was a small 
decrease of 248 cases in the domestic relations category. 



1984 Legislative Highlights 



years of service, and 19.2% upon completion of 20 years 
of service. (At the 1983 Session, seniority pay of 4.8% (of 
base salary) upon completion of five years of service and 
9.6% upon completion of 10 years of service were autho- 
rized for these groups. 

Public defenders, assistant public defenders, and as- 
sistant district attorneys are now authorized seniority pay 
of 4.8% (of base salary) upon completion of five years of 
service and 9.6% upon completion of 10 years of service; 
but these groups did not receive the 15- and 20-year 
incremental increases. 

Basic changes were made for setting salaries of assistant 
and deputy clerks of court. Under the new method, 
employees in offices of clerks of superior court are classi- 
fied in one of two categories: deputy clerks and assistant 
clerks. The deputies and assistants are then paid entirely 
on the basis of seniority and classification, in accord with 
a statutory schedule, with employees who begin work 
under the new plan reaching the maximum salary in 12 
years. The maximum pay for deputy clerks is now 
$19,716; and for assistant clerks, $25,980. 

Amendments approved by the 1984 Session signifi- 
cantly raised the salaries of superior court clerks. Those in 
counties with populations under 20,000 were raised from 
$21,024 to $30,000. Those in counties with populations 
over 200,000 were raised from $39,492 to $44,500. Those 
in counties between 20,000 and 200,000 in population 
received comparable raises. 

Other nonelected personnel in the Judicial Department 
received a pay increase of 10 percent, in line with what was 
granted for State employees generally. 

New Positions 

Funding was provided for four additional superior 
court judgeships, four district court judgeships, seven 
magistrates, four assistant district attorneys, and 53 dep- 
uty clerk positions. 

Appropriations for Judicial Department 

At the 1984 short session, the General Assembly 
approved for the 1984-85 year a total of $1 10,365,316 for 
operations of the Judicial Department, and $10,670,475 
for indigent representation fees. 



Salaries 



Judges, district attorneys, and clerks of court will now 
receive seniority pay of 14.4% (of base salary) after 15 



PART II 



COURT SYSTEM ORGANIZATION 
AND OPERATIONS 

• Historical Development of Court System 

• Present Court System 

• Organization and Operations in 1983-84 



HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE NORTH CAROLINA COURT SYSTEM 



From its early colonial period North Carolina's judi- 
cial system has been the focus of periodic attention and 
adjustment. Through the years, there has been a repeated 
sequence of critical examination, proposals for reform, 
and finally the enactment of some reform measures. 

Colonial Period 

Around 1 700 the royal governor established a General 
(or Supreme) Court for the colony and a dispute devel- 
oped over the appointment of associate justices. The 
Assembly conceded to the King the right to name the 
chief justice but unsuccessfully tried to win for itself the 
power to appoint the associate justices. Other controver- 
sies developed concerning the creation and jurisdiction of 
the courts and the tenure of judges. As for the latter, the 
Assembly's position was that judge appointments should 
be for good behavior as against the royal governor's 
decision for life appointment. State historians have noted 
that "the Assembly won its fight to establish courts and 
the judicial structure in the province was grounded on 
laws enacted by the legislature", which was more familiar 
with local conditions and needs (Lefler and Newsome, 
142). Nevertheless, North Carolina alternated between 
periods under legislatively enacted reforms (like good 
behavior tenure and the Court Bill of 1746, which con- 
tained the seeds of the post-Revolutionary court system) 
and periods of stalemate and anarchy after such enact- 
ment were nullified by royal authority. A more elaborate 
system was framed by legislation in 1 767 to last five years. 
It was not renewed because of persisting disagreement 
between local and royal partisans. As a result, North 
Carolina was without higher courts until after Independ- 
ence (Battle, 847). 

At the lower court level during the colonial period, 
judicial and county government administrative functions 
were combined in the authority of the justices of the 
peace, who were appointed by the royal governor. 

After the Revolution 

When North Carolina became a state in 1776, the 
colonial structure of the court system was retained largely 
intact. The Courts of Pleas and Quarter Sessions — the 
county court which continued in use from about 1670 to 
1868 — were still held by the assembled justices of the 
peace in each county. The justices were appointed by the 
governor on the recommendation of the General Assem- 
bly, and they were paid out of fees charged litigants. On 
the lowest level of the judicial system, magistrate courts 
of limited jurisdiction were held by justices of the peace, 
singly or in pairs, while the county court was out of term. 

The new Constitution of 1776 empowered the General 
Assembly to appoint judges of the Supreme Court of Law 
and Equity. A court law enacted a year later authorized 
three superior court judges and created judicial districts. 
Sessions were supposed to be held in the court towns of 
each district twice a year, under a system much like the 
one that had expired in 1 772. Just as there had been little 



distinction in terminology between General Court and 
Supreme Court prior to the Revolution, the terms 
Supreme Court and Superior Court were also inter- 
changeable during the period immediately following the 
Revolution. 

One of the most vexing governmental problems con- 
fronting the new State of North Carolina was its judi- 
ciary. "From its inception in 1777 the state's judiciary 
caused complaint and demands for reform. " ( Lefler and 
Newsome, 291, 292). Infrequency of sessions, conflicting 
judge opinions, and insufficient number of judges, and 
lack of means for appeal were all cited as problems, 
although the greatest weakness was considered to be the 
lack of a real Supreme Court. 

In 1779, the legislature required the Superior Court 
judges to meet together in Raleigh as a Court of Confer- 
ence to resolve cases which were disagreed on in the 
districts. This court was continued and made permanent 
by subsequent laws. The justices were required to put 
their opinions in writing to be delivered orally in court. 
The Court of Conference was changed in name to the 
Supreme Court in 1 805 and authorized to hear appeals in 
1810. Because of the influence of the English legal system, 
however, there was still no conception of an alternative to 
judges sitting together to hear appeals from cases which 
they had themselves heard in the districts in panels of as 
few as two judges (Battle, 848). In 1818, though, an 
independent three-judge Supreme Court was created for 
review of cases decided at the Superior Court level. 

Meanwhile, semi-annual superior court sessions in 
each county were made mandatory in 1806, and the State 
was divided into six circuits, or ridings, where the six 
judges were to sit in rotation, two judges constituting a 
quorum as before. 

The County Court of justices of the peace continued 
during this period as the lowest court and as the agency of 
local government. 

After the Civil War 

Major changes to modernize the judiciary and make it 
more democratic were made in 1868. A primary holdover 
from the English legal arrangement — the distinction 
between law and equity proceedings — was abolished. 
The County Court's control of local government was 
abolished. Capital offenses were limited to murder, 
arson, burglary and rape, and the Constitution stated 
that the aim of punishment was "not only to satisfy 
justice, but also to reform the offender, and thus prevent 
crime". The membership of the Supreme Court was 
raised to five, and the selection of the justices (including 
the designation of the chief justice) and superior court 
judges (raised in number to 12) was taken from the legis- 
lature and given to the voters, although vacancies were to 
be filled by the governor until the next election. The 
Court of Pleas and Quarter Sessions - - The County 
Court of which three justices of the peace constituted a 
quorum — was eliminated. Its judicial responsibilities 
were divided between the Superior Courts and the indi- 



HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE NORTH CAROLINA COURT SYSTEM 



\ idual justices of the peace, who were retained as separate 
judicial officers with limited jurisdiction. 

Conservatively oriented amendments to the 1868 Con- 
stitution in 1875 reduced the number of Supreme Court 
justices to three and the Superior Court judges to nine. 
The General Assembly was given the power to appoint 
justices of the peace, instead of the governor. Most of the 
modernizing changes in the post-Civil War Constitution, 
however, were left, and the judicial structure it had estab- 
lished continued without systematic modification through 
more than half of the 20th century. (A further constitu- 
tional amendment approved by the voters in November, 
1888. returned the Supreme Court membership to five, 
and the number of superior court judges to twelve.) 

Before Reorganization 

A multitude of legislative enactments to meet rising 
demands and to respond to changing needs had heavily 
encumbered the 1868 judicial structure by the time sys- 
tematic court reforms were proposed in the 1950's. This 
accrual of piecemeal change and addition to the court 
system was most evident at the lower, local court level, 
where hundreds of courts specially created by statute 
operated with widely dissimilar structure and jurisdiction. 

By 1965, when the implementation of the most recent 
major reforms was begun, the court system in North 
Carolina consisted of four levels: (a) the Supreme Court, 
with appellate jurisdiction; (b) the superior court, with 
general trial jurisdiction; (c) the local statutory courts of 
limited jurisdiction, and (d) justices of the peace and 
mayor's courts, with petty jurisdiction. 

At the superior court level, the State had been divided 
into 30 judicial districts and 21 solicitorial districts. The 
38 superior court judges (who rotated among the coun- 
ties) and the district solicitors were paid by the State. The 
clerk of superior court, who was judge of probate and 
often also a juvenile judge, was a county official. There 
were specialized branches of superior court in some coun- 
ties for matters like domestic relations and juvenile 
offenses. 

The lower two levels were local courts. At the higher of 
these local court levels were more than 1 80 recorder-type 
courts. Among these were the county recorder's courts, 
municipal recorder's courts and township recorder's 
courts: the general county courts, county criminal courts 
and special county courts; the domestic relations courts 
and the juvenile courts. Some of these had been estab- 
lished individually by special legislative acts more than a 
half-century earlier. Others had been created by general 
law across the State since 1919. About half were county 
courts and half were city or township courts. Jurisdiction 
included misdemeanors (mostly traffic offenses), prelim- 
inary hearings and sometimes civil matters. The judges, 
who were usually part-time, were variously elected or 
appointed locally. 

At the lowest level were about 90 mayor's courts and 
some 925 justices of the peace. These officers had similar 
criminal jurisdiction over minor cases with penalties up 



to a $50 fine or 30 days in jail. The justices of the peace 
also had civil jurisdiction of minor cases. These court 
officials were compensated by the fees they exacted, and 
they provided their own facilities. 



Court Reorganization 

The need for a comprehensive evaluation and revision 
of the court system received the attention and support of 
Governor Luther H. Hodges in 1957, who encouraged 
the leadership of the North Carolina Bar Association to 
pursue the matter. A Court Study Committee was estab- 
lished as an agency of the North Carolina Bar Associa- 
tion, and that Committee issued its report, calling for 
reorganization, at the end of 1958. A legislative Constitu- 
tional Commission, which worked with the Court Study 
Committee, finished its report early the next year. Both 
groups called for the structuring of an all-inclusive court 
system which would be directly state-operated, uniform 
in its organization throughout the State and centralized 
in its administration. The plan was for a simplified, 
streamlined and unified structure. A particularly impor- 
tant part of the proposal was the elimination of the local 
satutory courts and their replacement by a single District 
Court; the office of justice of the peace was to be abol- 
ished, and the newly fashioned position of magistrate 
would function within the District Court as a subordinate 
judicial office. 

Constitutional amendments were introduced in the 
legislature in 1959 but these failed to gain the required 
three-fifths vote of each house. The proposals were rein- 
troduced and approved at the 1961 session. The Constitu- 
tional amendments were approved by popular vote in 
1962, and three years later the General Assembly enacted 
statutes to put the system into effect by stages. By the end 
of 1970 all of the counties and their courts had been 
incorporated into the new system, whose unitary nature 
was symbolized by the name, General Court of Justice. 
The designation of the entire 20th century judicial system 
as a single, statewide "court," with components for vari- 
ous types and levels of caseload, was adapted from North 
Carolina's earlier General Court, whose full venue ex- 
tended to all of the 17th century counties. 



After Reorganization 

Notwithstanding the comprehensive reorganization 
adopted in 1962, the impetus for changes has continued. 
In 1 965, the Constitution was amended to provide for the 
creation of an intermediate Court of Appeals. It was 
amended again in 1 972 to allow for the Supreme Court to 
censure or remove judges upon the recommendation of a 
Judicial Standards Commission. As for the selection of 
judges, persistent efforts were made in the 1970's to obtain 
legislative approval of amendments to the State Constitu- 
tion, to appoint judges according to "merit" instead of 
electing them by popular, partisan vote. The proposed 
amendments received the backing of a majority of the 



HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE NORTH CAROLINA COURT SYSTEM 

members of each house, but not the three-fifths required people. It seems likely that this significant issue will be 
to submit constitutional amendments to a vote of the before the General Assembly again for consideration. 

Major Sources 

Battle, Kemp P.. An Address on the History of the Supreme Court (Delivered in 1888). 1 North Carolina Reports 835-876. 

Hinsdale, C. E., County Government in North Carolina. 1965 Edition. 

Lefler, Hugh Talmage and Albert Ray Newsome, North Carolina: The History of a Southern State. 1963 Edition. 

Sanders, John L., Constitutional Revision and Court Reform: A Legislative History. 1959 Special Report of the N.C. Institute of Government. 

Stevenson, George and Ruby D. Arnold, North Carolina Courts of Law and Equity Prior to 1868. N.C. Archives Information Circular 1973. 



THE PRESENT COURT SYSTEM 
Original Jurisdiction and Routes of Appeal 



Recommendations 
from Judicial I" 

| Standards Commission | 
I I 



Original Jurisdiction 
All felony cases; civil 
cases in excess of SI 0.000 



I 1 

Decisions of 

I Most Administrative 
Agencies 





Final Order of 
—J Utilities Commission in I 
General Rate Case* 



COURT OF 
APPEALS 

12 Judges 



Original Jurisdiction 
Probate and estates, 
special proceedings 
(condemnations, adoptions, 
partitions, foreclosures, 
etc.) 



civil cases 



criminal cases 
(for trial de novo) 



DISTRICT 
COURTS 

142 Judges 



Clerks of Superior 
Court 

(100) 



Magistrates 

(614) 



"®, I 



r~" 



Decisions of Industrial 



"~1 



Commission, State Ban 
>J Property Tax Commission, 
j Commissioner of Insurance, 



L 



Bd. of State Contract Appeals 



Original Jurisdiction 
Misdemeanor cases not assigned 
to magistrates; probable cause 
hearings; civil cases $ 10,000** 
or less; juvenile proceedings; 
domestic relations; 
involuntary commitments 



Original Jurisdiction 
Accept certain misdemeanor 
guilty pleas: worthless check 
misdemeanors $500 or less; 
small claims $1,000 or less* 



) Appeals from the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court are by right in Utilities Commission general rate cases, cases involving comstitutional 
questions, and cases in which there has been dissent in the Court of Appeals. In its discretion, the Supreme Court may review Court of Appeals 
decisions in cases of significant public interest or cases involving legal principles of major significance. 
(2) Appeals from these agencies lie directly to the Court of Appeals. 
\) As a matter of right, appeals go directly to the Supreme Court in criminal cases in which the defendent has been sentenced to death or life 
imprisonment, and in civil cases involving the involuntary annexation of territory by a municipality of 5, 000 or more population. In all other cases 
appeal as of right is to the Court of Appeals. In its discretion, the Supreme Court may hear appeals directly from the trial courts in cases where delay 
would cause substantial harm or the Court of Appeals docket is unusually full. 



'Effective July 1 , 1983, appeals in general rate cases go directly to Supreme Court instead of Court of Appeals. 

'*The district and superior courts have concurrent original jurisdiction in civil actions (G.S. 7A-242). However, the district court division is the 
proper division for the trial of civil actions in which the amount in controversy is $10,000 or less; and the superior court division is the proper 
division for the trial of civil actions in which the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000 (G.S. 7A-243). 



THE PRESENT COURT SYSTEM 



Article IV of the North Carolina Constitution estab- 
lishes the General Court of Justice which "shall constitute 
a unified judicial system for purposes of jurisdiction, 
operation, and administration, and shall consist of an 
Appellate Division, a Superior Court Division, and a 
District Court Division." 

The Appellate Division is comprised of the Supreme 
Court and the Court of Appeals. 

The Superior Court Division is comprised of the super- 
ior courts which hold sessions in the county seats of the 
100 counties of the State. The counties are grouped into 
judicial districts (34 at the present time), and one or more 
superior court judges are elected for each of the judicial 
districts. A clerk of the superior court for each county is 
elected by the voters of the county. 

The District Court Division is comprised of the district 
courts. The General Assembly is authorized to divide the 
State into a convenient number of local court districts and 
prescribe where the district courts shall sit, but district 
court must sit in at least one place in each county. The 
General Assembly has provided that districts for pur- 
poses of the district court are co-terminous with superior 
court judicial districts. The Constitution also provides for 
one or more magistrates to be appointed in each county 
"who shall be officers of the district court." 

The State Constitution (Art. IV, Sec. 1) also contains 
the term, "judicial department, "stating that "The General 
Assembly shall have no power to deprive the judicial 
department of any power or jurisdiction that rightfully 
pertains to it as a co-ordinate department of the govern- 
ment, nor shall it establish or authorize any courts other 
than as permitted by this Article." The terms, "General 
Court of Justice" and "Judicial Department" are almost, 
but not quite, synonymous. It may be said that the Judi- 
cial Department encompasses all of the levels of court 
designated as the General Court of Justice plus all admin- 
istrative and ancillary services within the Judicial De- 
partment. 

The original jurisdictions and routes of appeal between 
the several levels of court in North Carolina's system of 
courts are illustrated in the chart on the opposite page. 

Criminal Cases 

Trial of misdemeanor cases is within the original juris- 
diction of the district courts. Some misdemeanor offenses 
are tried by magistrates, who are also empowered to 
accept pleas of guilty to certain offenses and impose fines 
in accordance with a schedule set by the Conference of 
Chief District Court Judges. Most trials of misdemeanors 
are by district court judges, who also hold preliminary, 
"probable cause" hearings in felony cases. Trial of felony 
cases is within the jurisdiction of the superior courts. 

Decisions of magistrates may be appealed to the district 
court judge. In criminal cases there is no trial by jury 
available at the district court level; appeal from the dis- 
trict courts'judgments in criminal cases is to the superior 
courts for trial de novo before a jury. Except in life- 
imprisonment or death sentence cases (which are appealed 



to the Supreme Court), appeal from the superior courts is 
to the Court of Appeals. 

Civil Cases 

The lOOclerks of superior court are ex officio judges of 
probate and have original jurisdiction in probate and 
estates matters. The clerks also have jurisdiction over 
such special proceedings as adoptions, partitions, con- 
demnations under the authority of eminent domain, and 
foreclosures. Rulings of the clerk may be appealed to the 
superior court. 

The district courts have original jurisdiction in juvenile 
proceedings, domestic relations cases, petitions for invol- 
untary commitment to a mental hospital, and are the 
"proper" courts for general civil cases where the amount 
in controversy is $10,000 or less. If the amount in con- 
troversy is $1,000 or less and the plaintiff in the case so 
requests, the chief district court judge may assign the case 
for initial hearing by a magistrate. Magistrates'decisions 
may be appealed to the district court. Trial by jury for 
civil cases is available in the district courts; appeal from 
the judgment of a district court in a civil case is to the 
North Carolina Court of Appeals. 

The superior courts are the proper courts for trial of 
general civil cases where the amount in controversy is 
more than $10,000. Appeals from decisions of most 
administrative agencies is first within the jurisdiction of 
the superior courts. Appeal from the superior courts in 
civil cases is to the Court of Appeals. 

Administration 

The North Carolina Supreme Court has the "general 
power to supervise and control the proceedings of any of 
the other courts of the General Court of Justice." (G.S. 
7A-32(b)). 

In addition to this grant of general supervisory power, 
the North Carolina General Statutes provide certain 
Judicial Department officials with specific powers and 
responsibilities for the operation of the court system. The 
Supreme Court has the responsibility for prescribing 
rules of practice and procedures for the appellate courts 
and for prescribing rules for the trial courts to supple- 
ment those prescribed by statute. The Chief Justice of the 
Supreme Court designates one of the judges of the Court 
of Appeals to be its Chief Judge, who in turn is responsi- 
ble for scheduling the sessions of the Court of Appeals. 

The chart on the following page illustrates specific 
responsibilities for administration of the trial courts 
vested in Judicial Department officials by statute. The 
Chief Justice appoints the Director and an Assistant 
Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts; this 
Assistant Director also serves as the Chief Justice's 
administrative assistant. The schedule of sessions of 
superior court in the 100 counties is set by the Supreme 
Court; assignment of the State's rotating superior court 
judges is the responsibility of the Chief Justice. Finally, 
the Chief Justice designates a chief district court judge for 



THE PRESENT COURT SYSTEM 



each of the State's 34 judicial districts from among the 

elected district court judges of the respective districts. 
These judges have responsibilities for the scheduling of 
the district courts and magistrates' courts within their 
respective districts, along with other administrative respon- 
sibilities. 

The Administrative Office of the Courts is responsible 
for direction of non-judicial, administrative and business 
affairs of the Judicial Department. Included among its 
functions are fiscal management, personnel services, 
information and statistical services, supervision of record 
keeping in the trial court clerks' offices, liaison with the 
legislative and executive departments of government, 
court facility evaluation, purchase and contract, educa- 
tion and training, coordination of the program for provi- 



sion of legal counsel to indigent persons, juvenile proba- 
tion and after-care, trial court administrator services, 
planning, and general administrative services. 

The clerk of superior court in each county acts as clerk 
for both the superior and district courts. Until 1980, the 
clerk also served as chairman of the .county's calendar 
committee, which set the civil case calendars. Effective 
July 1, 1980, these committees were eliminated; day-to- 
day calendaring of civil cases is now done by the clerk of 
superior court or by a "trial court administrator" in some 
districts, under the supervision of the senior resident 
superior court judge and chief district court judge. The 
criminal case calendars in both superior and district 
courts are set by the district attorney of the respective 
district. 



THE PRESENT COURT SYSTEM 
Principal Administrative Authorities for North Carolina Trial Courts 



(34) Senior Resident 

Judges; (100) Clerks 

of Superior Court 

SUPERIOR 
COURTS 




CHIEF JUSTICE 

and 

SUPREME COURT 



i 



Administrative 

Office of 

the Courts 



i 



(35) District 
Attorneys 




(34) Chief District 
Court Judges 

DISTRICT 
COURTS 



'The Supreme Court has general supervisory authority over the operations of the superior courts (as well as other trial 
courts). The schedule of superior courts is approved by the Supreme Court; assignments of superior court judges, who 
rotate from district to district, are the responsibility of the Chief Justice. 

2 The Director and an Assistant Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts are appointed by and serve at the 
pleasure of the Chief Justice. 

3 The Supreme Court has general supervisory authority over the operations of the district courts (as well as other trial 
courts). The Chief Justice appoints a chief district court judge in each of the 34 judicial districts from thejudges elected in 
the respective districts. 

4 The Administrative Office of the Courts is empowered to prescribe a variety of rules governing the operation of the 
offices of the 100 clerks of superior court, and to obtain statistical data and other information from officials in the 
Judicial Department. 

5 The district attorney sets the criminal-case trial calendars. In each district, the senior resident superior court judge and 
the chief district court judge are empowered to supervise the calendaring procedures for civil cases in their respective 
courts. 

5 In addition to certain judicial functions, the clerk of superior court performs administrative, fiscal and record-keeping 
functions for both the superior court and district court of his county. Magistrates, who serve under the supervision of the 
chief district court judge, are appointed by the senior resident superior court judge from nominees submitted by the clerk 
of superior court. 



II 



THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA* 



Chief Justice 
JOSEPH BRANCH 



Associate Justices 



J. WILLIAM COPELAND 
JAMES G. EXUM, JR. 
LOUIS B. MEYER 



BURLEY B. MITCHELL, JR. 

HARRY C. MARTIN 

HENRY E. FRYE 



Retired Chief Justices 

WILLIAM H. BOBBITT 

SUSIE SHARP 



Retired Justices 



J. WILL PLESS, JR. 
I. BEVERLY LAKE 
DAN K. MOORE 



WALTER E. BROCK 

J. FRANK HUSKINS 

DAVID M. BRITT 



Clerk 
J. Gregory Wallace 



Librarian 
Frances H. Hall 



*Asof 30 June 1984. 



12 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1983-84 



The Supreme Court 



At the apex of the North Carolina court system is the 
seven-member Supreme Court, which sits in Raleigh to 
consider and decide questions of law presented in civil 
and criminal cases on appeal. The Chief Justice and six 
associate justices are elected to eight-year terms by the 
voters of the State. There are two terms of the Supreme 
Court each year: a Spring Term commencing on the first 
Tuesday in February and a Fall Term commencing on the 
first Tuesday in September. The Court does not sit in 
panels. It sits only en banc, that is, all members sitting on 
each case. 

Jurisdiction 

The only original case jurisdiction exercised by the 
Supreme Court is in the censure and removal of judges 
upon the (non-binding) recommendations of the Judicial 
Standards Commission. The Court's appellate jurisdic- 
tion includes: 

— cases on appeal by right from the Court of Appeals 
(cases involving substantial constitutional ques- 
tions and cases in which there has been dissent in 
the Court of Appeals); 

— cases on appeal by right from the Utilities Commis- 
sion (cases involving final order or decision in a 
general rate matter); 

— criminal cases on appeal by right from the superior 
courts (cases in which the defendant has been sen- 
tenced to death or life imprisonment); and 

- cases in which review has been granted in the 
Supreme Court's discretion. 
Discretionary review by the Supreme Court directly 
from the trial courts may be granted when delay would 
likely cause subsantial harm or when the workload of the 
Appellate Division is such that the expeditious adminis- 
tration of justice requires it. However, most appeals are 
heard only after review by the Court of Appeals. 

Administration 

The Supreme Court has general power to supervise 
and control the proceedings of the other courts of the 
General Court of Justice. The Court has specific power to 
prescribe the rules of practice and procedure for the trial 
court divisions, consistent with any rules enacted by the 
General Assembly. The schedule of superior court ses- 
sions in the 100 counties is approved yearly, by the 



Supreme Court. The Clerk of the Supreme Court, the 
Librarian of the Supreme Court Library, and the Appel- 
late Division Reporter are appointed by the Supreme 
Court. 

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court appoints the 
Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts and 
an Assistant Director, who serve at the pleasure of the 
Chief Justice. He also designates a Chief Judge from 
among the judges of the Court of Appeals and a Chief 
District Court Judge from among the district judges in 
each of the State's 34 judicial districts. He assigns superior 
court judges, who regularly rotate from district to district, 
to the scheduled sessions of superior court in the 100 
counties, and he is also empowered to transfer district 
court judges to other districts for temporary or special- 
ized duty. The Chief Justice appoints three of the seven 
members of the Judicial Standards Commission — ajudge 
of the Court of Appeals who serves as the Commission's 
chairman, one superior court judge and one district court 
judge. The Chief Justice also appoints six of the 24 voting 
members of the N.C. Courts Commission: one associate 
justice of the Supreme Court; one Court of Appeals 
judge; two superior court judges; and two district court 
judges. 

Expenses of the Court, 1983-84 

Operating expenses of the Supreme Court during the 
1 983-84 fiscal year amounted to $1,571,31 6, an increase of 
7.3% over total 1982-83 expenditures of $1,464,289. 
Expenditures for the Supreme Court during 1983-84 con- 
stituted 1.5% of all General Fund expenditures for the 
operation of the entire Judicial Department during the 
fiscal year. 

Case Data, 1983-84 

A total of 343 appealed cases were before the Supreme 
Court during the fiscal year, including 142 cases pending 
on July 1, 1983and 201 cases filed during the year. Atotal 
of 192 appealed cases were disposed of, with 151 cases 
remaining pending on June 30, 1984. 

A total of 629 petitions (requests to appeal) were before 
the Court during the 1983-84 year, with 465 petitions 
disposed of and 162 pending as of June 30, 1984. 

More detailed data on the Court's workload is pre- 
sented on the following pages. 



13 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1983-84 

Supreme Court Caseload Inventory 

July 1, 1983-June 30, 1984 



Petitions for Review 

Civil domestic 

Juvenile 

Other civil 

Criminal 

Postconviction remedy 

Administrative agency decision 

Total Petitions for Review 

Appeals 

Civil domestic 

Petitions for review granted that became civil domestic 

appeals 
Juvenile 

Petitions for review granted that became juvenile appeals 
Other civil 
Petitions for review granted that became other civil 

appeals 
Criminal, defendant sentenced to death 
Criminal, defendant sentenced to life imprisonment 
Other criminal 
Petitions for review granted that became other criminal 

appeals 
Petitions for review granted that became postconviction 

remedy cases 
Administrative agency decision 
Petitions for review granted that became appeals of 

administrative agency decision 

Total appeals 

Other Proceedings 

Extraordinary writs 

Advisory opinion 

Rule 16(b) additional issues re dissent 

Rule amendments 

Motions 

Total Other Proceedings 



Pending 






Pending 


7/1/83 


Filed 


Disposed 


6/30/84 


4 


33 


28 


9 





5 


5 





37 


235 


192 


80 


27 


143 


124 


44 


8 


78 


74 


12 


12 


47 


42 


17 



88 



142 



541 



201 



465 



192 



162 






3 


2 


1 





4 


1 


3 





1 





1 





2 


1 


1 


10 


30 


23 


17 


16 


28 


26 


18 


18 


10 


11 


17 


65 


73 


74 


64 


9 


28 


24 


13 


13 


10 


16 


7 



151 



2 


76 


77 


1 

















6 


4 


2 





12 


6 


6 


3 


728 


731 






822 



818 



14 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN FISCAL YEAR 1983-84 

APPEALS FILED IN THE SUPREME COURT 
JULY 1, 1983 — JUNE 30, 1984 



CRIMINAL-DEATH 



CRIMINAL LIFE 



ADMIN. AGENCY 



OTHER CIVIL 




JUVENILE 1%(3) 
DOMESTIC RELATIONS 



OTHER CRIMINAL 



PETITIONS FILED IN THE SUPREME COURT 
JULY 1, 1983 - JUNE 30, 1984 



JUVENILE 

1% 
(5) 



CRIMINAL 




POST-CONVICTION 



OTHER CIVIL 



ADMIN. AGENCY 



DOMESTIC RELATIONS 



15 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1983-84 

Supreme Court Caseload Types by Judicial District and Division 

July 1, 1983-June 30, 1984 



Judicial 


Judicial 


Total 


Death 


Life 


Other 


Civil 


Other 


Cases 


Division 


District 


Cases 


Cases 


Cases 


Criminal 


Cases 


Cases 


Disposed 


I 


1 


8 





3 


2 


3 





4 




2 


S 


1 


2 


2 


2 


1 


5 




3 


17 





8 


1 


7 


1 


10 




4 


14 


1 


x 


3 


2 





8 




5 


13 


3 


4 


5 


1 





9 




6 


4 


1 


3 











1 




7 


3 


1 


1 





1 





2 




8 


6 


1 


3 


2 








4 


SUBTOTAL 




73 


8 


32 


15 


16 


2 


43 


11 


9 


2 


1 








1 





1 




10 


58 





9 


6 


16 


27 


29 




11 


8 


I 


3 


1 


1 


2 


6 




12 


16 


1 


9 


3 


3 





12 




13 


1 


(1 


1 











1 




14 


x 


1 


5 


1 


1 





6 




15A 


4 





3 





1 





3 




15B 


11 





5 


2 


4 





4 




16 


7 


2 


2 


2 


1 





6 


SUBTOTAL 




115 


6 


37 


15 


28 


29 


68 


111 


17A 


3 





1 


I 


1 





2 




17B 


4 


2 


1 


1 








3 




18 


20 


1 


10 


1 


8 





II 




19A 


8 


1 


6 


1 








6 




19B 


5 





2 


2 


1 





4 




20 


10 


1 


3 


6 








y 




21 


22 


1 


9 


5 


6 


1 


y 




22 


7 





2 


1 


4 





5 




23 


9 


1 


3 


4 


1 





6 


SUBTOTAL 




88 


7 


37 


22 


21 


1 


54 


l\ 


24 


1 


1 



















25 


X 


1 


4 


3 








5 




26 


26 


1 


X 


5 


10 


2 


II 




27A 


7 


1 


3 


1 


1 


1 


2 




27B 


4 


1 


1 


1 





1 


1 




28 


9 





6 


1 


2 





4 




29 


8 


2 


4 


2 








2 




30 


4 





3 





1 





2 


SUBTOTAL 




67 


7 


29 


13 


14 


4 


27 


TOTALS 




343 


28 


135 


65 


79 


36 


192 



16 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1983-84 

Submission of Cases Reaching Decision Stage 
July 1, 1983-June 30, 1984 



Cases Argued 

Civil 
Criminal 

Total cases argued 



60 

97 

157 



Submissions Without Argument 

By motion of the parties (Appellate Rule 30 (d)) 
By order of the Court (Appellate Rule 30 (f)) 

Total submissions without argument 



15 


15 



Total Cases Reaching Decision Stage 



172 



Disposition of Petitions and Other Proceedings by the Supreme Court 

July 1, 1983-June 30, 1984 









Dismissed/ 


Total 


Petitions for Review 


Granted 41 


Denied 


Withdrawn 


Disposed 


Civil Domestic 


6 


22 


1 


28 


Juvenile 


1 


4 





5 


Other Civil 


32 


160 





192 


Criminal 


18 


106 





124 


Postconviction Remedy 


5 


45 


24 


74 


Administrative Agency Decision 


6 


36 





42 


Total Petitions for Review 


69 


373 


24 


465 



Other Proceedings 

Extraordinary Writs 

Advisory Opinion 

Rule 16(b) — Additional Issues 

Rule Amendments 

Motions 

Total Other Proceedings 



*"GRANTED" includes orders allowing relief without accepting the case as a full appeal. 



15 


60 





77 



2 


2 





4 
6 

731 

818 



17 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1983-84 
Disposition of Supreme Court Appeals With Published Opinion 



Case Types 

Civil domestic 
Juvenile 
Other civil 

Criminal (death sentence) 
Criminal (life sentence) 
Other criminal 
Postconviction remedy 
Administrative agency 
decision 









Reversed 




Total 


Affirmed 


Modified 


Reversed 


Remanded 


Remanded 


Disposed 








1 


1 





2 











1 





1 


9 


6 


4 


19 





38 


5 








2 


3 


10 


47 





4 


11 


9 


71 


7 


5 


5 


10 


1 


28 





















10 



Totals 



69 



13 



15 



49 



14 



160 



Disposition of Supreme Court Appeals with Per Curiam Decision 



Case Types 



Affirmed 



Modified 



Reversed 



Reversed Total 

Remanded Remanded Disposed 



Civil domestic 
Juvenile 
Other civil 

Criminal (death sentence) 
Criminal (life sentence) 
Other criminal 
Postconviction remedy 
Administrative agency 
decision 

Totals 



15 



1 


9 

1 
11 


3 

25 



Disposition of Supreme Court Appeals by Dismissal or Withdrawal 



Case Types 



Dismissed or 
Withdrawn 



Civil domestic 

Juvenile 

Other Civil 

Criminal (death sentence) 

Criminal (life sentence) 

Other criminal 

Post-conviction remedy 

Administrative agency decision 



Totals 



18 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN FISCAL YEAR 1983-84 

MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF APPEALS IN THE SUPREME COURT 

JULY 1, 1983 — JUNE 30, 1984 



OPINIONS 




DISMISSALS 



PER CURIAM DECISIONS 



TYPE OF DISPOSITION OF PETITIONS FOR REVIEW IN THE SUPREME COURT 

JULY 1, 1983 - JUNE 30, 1984 



DENIED 




GRANTED 



DISMISSED/WITHDRAWN 



19 



I 






ae 



c 

3 



< 

■o 
c 
ea 



2 3 



ex 

— C «? 
M •- 4> 

o S 8 

3 
_ ^ ox 

OX E — k. 

c .o U « 

*» i 1 J? -o 

* Q II 



— 




on 


ca 




c 


o 


c 


<u 


k. 


41 


.* 





(- 


u 


<•« 


3 





>> 


ex 


•a 


■o 


k. 


£ 


41 




o 


OS 




is 



H 


ea 




< 


y; 


£ 


X 


>>. 


J2 
3 


-i. 


ce 


Si 


3- 




la 


c 


o 




U 


c 
£ 


< 


DC 

B 


3 
OX 
k. 


z 


■3 


< 


o 


B 


k. 
O 


H 


C- 


< 


b> 


o 


N 


3 


<— 







.-. 


z 


U 


SI 


<< 

w 


E 


as 


as 


3) 


o 

Z 


c 


O. 
3 




X 






<— 






c 






t- 






u 






£1 






E 






3 






z 





ox 

c 

ox-"' "3 

.3 a* ««- -i 

'« <u 'Z o 

PS"* 



ox 

P .£ 

"* « i: £ 

<! °- £ 



ox* 
.£ -a 

3 >- 

03 rj 

* g 



OX u 

c c 

B 81 

^ IN 

« OX 

Q " 
i £ 

£.2 



AQ 

• i 

os 

® Q 

AQ 
o </> 

so 

©Q 



? IT 

AQ 

O i/J 

s© »►> 

• « 

oQ 
AQ 



«^ Q 






AQ 
- Q 



S « 



in r~ tj- o O on 
m — vD rs 



— oo o <~n o O cn 



O — <N O O O 



so >n t~~ t~> O m 



o o o o o o 



o © © © © © 



m « so os o o 



O O — i o o o 



O O "* © © © 



m — Tt <N O <N 



IT) 



O — < 



— O 



(N m SO <N o -^ 



— < o <~n o o -^ 



O — i sO o o o 



O "<t >o o o o 



r- o o © 



o o 2 © © © 



a 


u 
£ 


^i 


o 


H 


•a 


41 


i — | 


eg 


^ 


U 


U 



0J 

C <u 

e c 

a 

it 



u 

J2 



,i) G 

1 5 

.5 43 



u u 



-o 
E 



o 

0- 



Q 



c 
u 

< 

u 

> 



c 
£ 

< 



OS 



m 



E 



o 

-C 



T3 
O 



C3 

= 

a 

cd 

-a 
c 












OS 





-^ 




c 
















cfl 


SB 


s 


"3 


< 


41 


'h— 


a 


G 


a. 


SI 


< 


3 


_^ 


al 


53 


tr 






O 


< 


H 


* 



20 



400 _ 



NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT 
Appeals Docketed and Disposed of During the Years, 1978-79—1983-84 



Appeals Docketed 
Appeals Disposed of 



300_ 



N 
U 
M 
B 
E 
R 

O 200. 
F 

C 
A 

S 
E 
S 



100 





192 



1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 



1983-84 



21 



sou 



NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT 

Petitions Docketed and Allowed During the Years, 1978-79—1983-84 



600 



N 

U 
M 

B 
E 
R 

O 400 
F 

C 

•\ 
S 

I 
S 



200 



Petitions Docketed 
Petitions Allowed 



499 



65 




70 



1978-79 



1979-80 



1980-81 



1981-82 



1982-83 



1983-84 



22 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1983-84 



Supreme Court Processing Time for Disposed Cases 

(Total time in days from docketing to decision) 

July 1, 1983-June 30, 1984 



Civil domestic 

Petitions for review granted that became civil domestic appeals 

Juvenile 

Petitions for review granted that became juvenile appeals 

Other civil 

Petitions for review granted that became other civil appeals 

Criminal, defendant sentenced to death 

Criminal, defendant sentenced to life imprisonment 

Other criminal 

Petitions for review granted that became other criminal appeals 

Petitions for review granted that became post-conviction remedy cases 

Administrative agency decision 

Petitions for review granted that became appeals of administrative 
agency decision 

Total appeals 



Number 


(Days) 


(Days) 


of Cases 


Median 


Mean 


2 


— 


149.5 


1 


208 


208.0 








0.0 


1 


296 


296.0 


23 


144 


178.7 


26 


173 


244.2 


11 


283 


372.1 


74 


185 


205.8 


24 


131 


133.3 


16 


180 


198.1 








0.0 


8 


228 


195.9 


6 


169 


181.5 



192 



178 



205.9 



23 



THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA* 



Chief Judge 
EARL W. VAUGHN 



Judges 



R.A. HEDRICK 
GERALD ARNOLD 
JOHN WEBB 
HUGH A. WELLS 
CECIL J. HILL 
WILLIS P. WHICHARD 



CHARLES L. BECTON 

CLIFTON E. JOHNSON 

E. MAURICE BRASWELL 

EUGENE H. PHILLIPS 

SIDNEY S. EAGLES, JR. 



Retired Chief Judge 
NAOMI E. MORRIS 



Retired Judges 



HUGH B. CAMPBELL 
FRANK M. PARKER 



EDWARD B. CLARK 
ROBERT M. MARTIN 



Clerk 
FRANCIS E. DAIL 



•As of 30 June 1984 



24 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1983-84 



The Court of Appeals 



The 12-judge Court of Appeals is North Carolina's 
intermediate appellate court; it hears a majority of the 
appeals originating from the State's trial courts. The 
Court regularly sits in Raleigh, and it may sit in other 
locations in the State as authorized by the Supreme 
Court. Sessions outside of Raleigh have not been regular 
or frequent. Judges of the Court of Appeals are elected by 
popular vote for eight-year terms. A Chief Judge for the 
Court is designated by the Chief Justice of the Supreme 
Court and serves in that capacity at the pleasure of the 
Chief Justice. 

Cases are heard by panels of three judges, with the 
Chief Judge responsible for assigning members of the 
Court to the four panels. Insofar as practicable, each 
judge is to be assigned to sit a substantially equal number 
of times with each other judge. The Chief Judge presides 
over the panel of which he or she is a member and 
designates a presiding judge for the other panels. 

One member of the Court of Appeals, designated by 
the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, serves as chair- 
man of the Judicial Standards Commission. 

Jurisdiction 

The bulk of the caseload of the Court of Appeals 
consists of cases appealed from the trial courts. The 
Court also hears appeals directly from the Industrial 
Commission; certain final orders or decisions of the 
North Carolina State Bar; and the Commissioner of 
Insurance; the State Board of Contract Appeals; and 
appeals from certain final orders or decisions of the 
Property Tax Commission. (Appeals from the decisions 
of other administrative agencies lie first within the juris- 
diction of the superior courts.) 



In the event of a recommendation from the Judicial 
Standards Commission to censure or remove from office 
a justice of the Supreme Court, the (non-binding) 
recommendation would be considered by the Chief Judge 
and the six judges next senior in service on the Court of 
Appeals (excluding the judge who serves as the Commis- 
sion's chairman). Such seven-member panel would have 
sole jurisdiction to act upon the Commission's recom- 
mendation. 



Expenses of the Court, 1983-84 

Operating expenses of the Court of Appeals during the 
1983-84 fiscal year totalled $2,260,654, an increase of 
1 1 .6% over 1982-83 expenditures of $2,025,252. Expendi- 
tures for the Court of Appeals during 1983-84 amounted 
to 2.2% of all General Fund expenditures for operation of 
the entire Judicial Department during the fiscal year. This 
percentage share of the total is the same as the Court of 
Appeals' percentage share of the Judicial Department 
total in the 1982-83 fiscal year. 



Case Data, 1983-84 

A total of 1,314 appealed cases were filed before the 
Court of Appeals during the period, July 1 , 1983 — June 
30, 1984. A total of 1,412 cases were disposed of during 
the same period. During 1983-84, a total of 471 petitions 
and 1 ,725 motions were filed before the Court of Appeals. 

Further detail on the workload of the Court of Appeals 
is shown in the tables and graphs on the following pages. 



25 



FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 
July 1, 1983-June 30, 1984 

Cases on Appeal Filings Dispositions 

Civil cases appealed from district courts 279 

Civil cases appealed from superior courts 448 

Civil cases appealed from administrative agencies 63 

Criminal cases appealed from superior courts 524 

Total 1,314 1,412 



Petitions 

Allowed 59 

Denied 364 

Remanded 

Total 471 423 



Motions 

Allowed 1,258 

Denied 311 

Remanded 1 

Total 1,725 1,570 

Total Cases on Appeal, Petitions and Motions 3,510 3,405 



26 



INVENTORY OF CASES APPEALED TO THE COURT OF APPEALS 

July 1, 1983-June 30, 1984 





Judicial 




Cases Filed 




Other 


Total 
Cases 


Total 


Judicial 


Appeals from 


Appeals from Superior Court 


Cases 


Division 


District 


District Courts 


Civil 


Criminal 


Appeals 


Filed 


Disposed 


I 


1 


10 


11 


7 





28 


3! 




2 


2 


6 


20 





28 


38 




3 


9 


14 


28 





51 


59 




4 


6 


13 


28 





47 


54 




5 


5 


6 


17 





28 


35 




6 


1 


9 


8 





18 


20 




7 


2 


10 


5 





17 


24 




8 


7 


4 


26 





37 


44 


II 


9 


3 


3 


11 





17 


24 




10 


27 


56 


26 


61 


170 


191 




11 


6 


13 


14 





33 


31 




12 


10 


8 


26 





44 


53 




13 


7 


3 


13 





23 


22 




14 


8 


25 


18 





51 


41 




15A/B* 


18 


20 


20 





58 


45 




16 


2 


11 


19 


1 


33 


38 


III 


17A/B* 


5 


5 


10 





20 


22 




18 


23 


37 


20 


1 


81 


60 




19A/B* 


10 


13 


23 





46 


44 




20 


12 


24 


16 





52 


55 




21 


24 


20 


25 





69 


98 




22 


12 


21 


20 





53 


38 




23 


5 


8 


11 





24 


28 


IV 


24 


4 


6 


7 





17 


13 




25 


10 


14 


27 





51 


57 




26 


24 


32 


31 





X7 


102 




27A/B* 


8 


13 


22 





43 


48 




28 


X 


20 


20 





48 


41 




29 


9 


8 


5 





22 


36 




30 


2 


15 


1 





18 


20 



Totals 



279 



448 



524 



63 



1,314 



1,412 



♦Combined totals for Districts 15A and 15B, Districts 17A and 17B, 
Separate figures for these districts were not available. 



Districts 19A and 19B, and Districts 27A and 27B are shown. 



27 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CASES BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS 

July 1, 1983-June 30, 1984 

Cases Disposed by Written Opinion 



TOTALS 



Judicial 


Judicial 


Cases 


Division 


District 


Affirmed 


I 


1 


21 




: 


25 




3 


36 




4 


36 




5 


16 




6 


16 




7 


19 




s 


37 


11 


9 


18 




10 


114 




11 


24 




12 


35 




13 


15 




14 


30 




15A/B* 


29 




16 


26 


III 


17A/B* 


15 




18 


33 




19A/B* 


34 




20 


41 




21 


62 




22 


24 




23 


10 


[V 


24 


9 




25 


43 




26 


72 




27A/B* 


27 




28 


21 




29 


19 




30 


9 



916 





Cases Affirmed 


Total Cases 






Cases 


in Part, Reversed 


by Written 


Other Cases 


Total Cases 


Reversed 


in Part 


Opinion 


Disposed 


Disposed 


3 


2 


26 


5 


31 


10 


2 


37 


1 


38 


15 


6 


57 


2 


59 


14 


2 


52 


2 


54 


16 


2 


34 


1 


35 


2 


1 


19 


1 


20 


3 


1 


23 


1 


24 


4 


2 


43 


1 


44 


5 





23 


1 


24 


48 


6 


168 


23 


191 


3 


1 


28 


3 


31 


12 


1 


48 


5 


53 


4 


1 


20 


2 


22 


9 





39 


2 


41 


10 


1 


40 


5 


45 


11 


1 


38 





38 


6 


1 


22 





22 


15 


3 


51 


9 


60 


9 


1 


44 





44 


4 


6 


51 


4 


55 


25 


6 


93 


5 


98 


6 





30 


8 


38 


13 


1 


24 


4 


28 


2 





11 


2 


13 


X 


2 


53 


4 


57 


IX 


6 


96 


6 


102 


19 





46 


2 


48 


14 





35 


6 


41 


12 


4 


35 


1 


36 


10 


1 


20 





20 



330 



60 



1,306 



106 



1,412 



'Combined totals for Districts 15A and 15B, Districts 17A and 17B, Districts 19A and 19B, and Districts 27A and 27B are shown. 
Separate figures for these districts were not available. 



2X 







. 


at 






2 o 






o a 






H .2 






Q 








T3 








ii 








"O 








c 








es 








£ 








at 






■o 


OS 


en 








hJ 




O 




< 






■o 


W 




Q 


.— 


On 




<*> 


c 


CU 




J 


Q 


< 








to 




« 




O 




cu 


T) 


H 






i. 


X 









P 






3 


o 








u 








w 








K 






13 
C 


H 






es 


W 






E 


OS 


T 


"O 


OS 


o 


00 
OS 


11 

</> 





h 


fH 


a 






O 


CO 

5 


.22 
'c 


Z 


c 

3 


| 


41 

Q 


o 


o 




H 


■ 


s 






00 




■a 


H 








On 


^H 




< 


Q 


_>> 






Z 


"3 




Gfl 




3 "2 


z 

o 




o = 
H to 


NN 






H 






O 




«9 


5 






u. 
o 




o- 


> 






» 




09 


© 




Jl 


H 




z 




1 S 


w 




> 






z 






NN 




"3 ** 
cs w 

3 8 

.2 '35 






"-S 


Q 



oos/imu-isor^r-m 



m os v> so so r~ — ■< tj- 

<n — i 



OO Os O O Os >/"> <■<"> O <"*"> — Tf r~ Os — 

(N N •* m OO VI m ri vO fnm 0O ■* M 



Os 

9s 



oooooooo 



r^MNxrnooMin 



oooooooo 



Tt — — 



o o o o o o o 



o o o o o o o 



»D O ^O O^ 't fl ^f <■«-> i/-} c-> sO ro ci r»i 

<N (N — <N — — 



O O >/"> — SO — ' Csl — < 



OOOr^rnOrneNO 



— ' >o o <n o u-> — 



(N(<1 (N O - fN O 



s© 



Os 
>Ti 



oooooooo 



.5 rsinooooTfr^ror- 



Os O") OO OO r«-> — ■> © Csl 



r~ so © — t-- r~- os m 



Os sO OO — OO a 't - > 
— (N M — — — 



OOOMOWOOVlTf 
Tt(N0CiT)(N(N-Tf 



OOOOO— ' © © 



Tf(N<NO<Nr~iriin 



© sO 1^ — Ti OO vO t 



r<1 fS iri t^ \C 00 - Tt 
ci — 



o o o o o o o 



ooooooo ~* 



<N © sO CM in r«") Os — — ' — O — ' ^ m 



Ov ■* 0O 1^ O ^t a -^ Tt >/~i 0O CM © r«-> 

— X (N NTl m - (N fl OO CHO (N - 



M ^ (N Oi x wi vo Tf-^-T^-oinr-oo 

m^t vi Tt i> von n\OTf \OOMflfs 



90 

cm 



s© 

9s 



ON«N<NTj-r~-omr- oo^o> O *o oo vi 

sO — — i CM — — — CM — > «N 



sO © — OMNTf o 

N'O'tvovnoon 

CM — . 



CM r-» r<-> Os CM r- — 
cm — Tf <■<-) r~ i/~i m 



so r- r- os ^ oo en 



oo r- r- — — os «*> 
rsi tj- — vr> oo m cm 






id 
cm 



* * * 

CQ 09 03 



* 
CQ 



< < < < 

cm rn tj- in so r~- oo OsO — (S n Tt vi \0 r- oo os © — (N n •<*• m so r- oo Os © 
— — — — — — — — — — cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm cm r«-i 



3 



o 
c 


-C 

u 

U 

ea 



■o 
c 



Q 
•a 



2C 



c 



< 



T3 
C 

< 



< 



c 

u 

o 

o 
■p 

.11 

1-3 



29 



FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 
FISCAL YEARS 1978 THROUGH 1983-84 



3000 



N 

I 

M 
B 
E 

R 



O 
F 



C 
A 

S 
E 

S 



2500 



2000 



1500 



1000 



500 



o L 




1978 



1979 



1980 



1981 



1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 



Filings and dispositions in this graph include appealed cases and petitions (not motions) in the Court of Appeals. During 
1983-84, dispositions exceeded filings for the first time since 1980. 



30 





5/5 

c 




o 








6B 


5 


> 


w 


5 


H 


•o 

c 


> 


A 


in 


t/5 




-♦— 


H 


u 


tf 


ha 


P 


</J 


O 


Q 


U 


__ 




«t 


H 


u 


Z 


t5 


w 


3 


en 


►■9 


w 


« 


as 

On 







ha 

u 


H 


J= 




•** 




ha 




o 




Z 




uS" 



31 



JUDGES OF SUPERIOR COURT* 

(As of June 30, 1984) 



District 



FIRST DIVISION 

J. Herbert Small, Elizabeth City 

Elbert S. Peel. Jr., Williamston 

David E. Reid. Jr., Greenville 

Herbert O. Phillips, III, Morehead City 

Henry L. Stevens, III, Kenansville 
James R. Strickland, Jacksonville 

Bradford Tillery, Wilmington 
Napoleon B. Barefoot, Wilmington 

Richard B. Allsbrook, Roanoke Rapids 

Franklin R. Brown, Tarboro 
Charles B. Winberry, Rocky Mount 

R. Michael Bruce, Mount Olive 
James D. Llewellyn, Kinston 

SECOND DIVISION 

Robert H. Hobgood, Louisburg 

James H. Pou Bailey, Raleigh 
Henry V. Barnett, Jr., Raleigh 
Robert L. Farmer, Raleigh 
Edwin S. Preston, Jr., Raleigh 

1 I Wiley F. Bowen, Dunn 

12 Darius B. Herring, Jr., Fayetteville 
Coy E. Brewer, Jr., Fayetteville 
Edwin L. Johnson, Fayetteville 

13 Giles R. Clark, Elizabethtown 

14 Thomas H. Lee, Durham 
Anthony M. Brannon, Bahama 
John C. Martin, Durham 

15A D. Marsh McLelland, Burlington 

15B F. Gordon Battle, Chapel Hill 

16 B. Craig Ellis, Laurinburg 



District 

17A 

17B 



9 

10 



19A 

19B 

20 

21 

22 
23 

24 

25 

26 



27A 

27B 

2X 

29 
30 



THIRD DIVISION 

Melzer A. Morgan, Jr., Wentworth 

James M. Long, Pilot Mountain 

W. Douglas Albright, Greensboro 
Edward K. Washington, Greensboro 
Thomas W. Ross, Greensboro 

Thomas W. Seay, Jr., Spencer 
James C. Davis, Concord 

Hal H. Walker, Asheboro 

F. Fetzer Mills, Wadesboro 
William H. Helms, Wingate 

William Z. Wood, Winston-Salem 
Judson D. DeRamus, Jr., Winston-Salem 
William H. Freeman, Winston-Salem 

Robert A. Collier, Jr., Statesville 
C. Preston Cornelius 

Julius A. Rousseau, Jr., North Wilkesboro 

FOURTH DIVISION 

Charles C. Lamm, Jr., Boone 

Forrest A. Ferrell, Hickory 
Claude S. Sitton, Morganton 

Frank W. Snepp, Jr., Charlotte 
Robert M. Burroughs, Charlotte 
Kenneth A. Griffin, Charlotte 
William T. Grist, Charlotte 
Chase B. Saunders, Charlotte 

Robert W. Kirby, Cherryville 
Robert E. Gaines, Gastonia 

John R. Friday, Lincolnton 

Robert D. Lewis, Asheville 
C. Walter Allen, Asheville 

Hollis M. Owens, Jr., Rutherfordton 

James U. Downs, Franklin 



'In districts with more than one resident judge, the senior resident judge is listed first. 



^2 



SPECIAL JUDGES OF SUPERIOR COURT 



James A. Beaty, Jr., Winston-Salem 
Arthur L. Lane, Fayetteville 
John B. Lewis, Jr., Farmville 
Mary M. Pope, Southern Pines 



Donald L. Smith, Raleigh 
Russell G. Walker, Jr., Asheboro 
Thomas S. Watts, Elizabeth City 



EMERGENCY JUDGES OF SUPERIOR COURT 

George M. Fountain, Tarboro 

Henry A. McKinnon, Jr., Lumberton 

Samuel E. Britt, Lumberton 



The Conference of Superior Court Judges 

(Officers as of June 30, 1984) 

Thomas W. Seay, Jr., Spencer, President 

William T. Grist, Charlotte, President- Elect 

James M. Long, Pilot Mountain, Vice President 

Edwin L. Johnson, Fayetteville, 
Secretary- Treasurer 

Elbert S. Peel, Jr., Williamston, and Wiley F. Bowen, 
Dunn, Additional Executive Committee Members 



}} 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1983-84 



The Superior Courts 



North Carolina's superior courts are the general juris- 
diction trial courts for the state. In 1981-82. there were 60 
"resident"superior court judges elected to office in the 34 
judicial districts for eight-year-terms by Statewide ballot. 
In addition, eight "special" superior court judges are 
appointed by the Governor for four-year terms. 

Jurisdiction 



The superior court has original jurisdiction in all fel- 
ony cases and in those misdemeanor cases which origi- 
nate by grand jury indictment. (Most misdemeanors are 
tried first in the district court, from which conviction may 
be appealed to the superior court for trial de novo by a 
jury. No trial by jury is available for criminal cases in 
district court.) The superior court is the proper court for 
the trial of civil cases where the amount in controversy 
exceeds SI 0.000, and it has jurisdiction over appeals from 
administrative agencies except the Industrial Commis- 
sion, certain rulings of the Commissioner of Insurance, 
the Board of Bar Examiners of the North Carolina State 
Bar. the Board of State Contract Appeals, and the Prop- 
erty Tax Commission. Appeals from these agencies lie 
directly to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.* 
Regardless of the amount in controversy, the original 
civil jurisdiction of the superior court does not include 
domestic relations cases, which are heard in the district 
courts, or probate and estates matters and certain special 
proceedings heard first by the clerk of superior court. 
Rulings of the clerk are within the appellate jurisdiction 
of the superior court. 

Administration 

The 100 counties of North Carolina were grouped into 
34 judicial districts during 1983-84. Each district has at 
least one resident superior court judge who has certain 
administrative responsibilities for his home district, such 
as providing for civil case calendaring procedures. (Crimi- 
nal case calendars are prepared by the district attorneys.) 
In districts with more than one resident superior court 
judge, the judge senior in service on the superior court 
bench exercises these supervisory powers. 



The judicial districts are grouped into four divisions for 
the rotation of superior court judges, as shown on the 
map on Page 29. Within the division, a resident superior 
court judge is required to rotate among the judicial dis- 
tricts, holding court for at least six months in each, then 
moving on to his next assignment. A special superior 
court judge may be assigned to hold court in any of the 
lOOcounties. Assignments of all superior court judges are 
made by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Under 
the Constitution of North Carolina, at least two sessions 
(a week each) of superior court are held annually in each 
of the 100 counties. The vast majority of counties have 
more than the Constitutional minimum of two weeks of 
superior court annually. Many larger counties have 
superior court in session about every week in the year. 



Expenditures 

A total of SI 2, 06 1,852 was expended on the operations 
of the superior courts during the 1 983-84 fiscal year. This 
included the salaries and travel expenses for the 68 super- 
ior court judges, and salaries and expense for court report- 
ers and secretarial staff for superior court judges. The 
1 983-84 expenditures for the superior courts amounted to 
1 1.6% of total General Fund expenditures for the opera- 
tions of the entire Judicial Department during the 1983- 
84 fiscal year. 

Caseload 

Including both civil and criminal cases, a total of 80,558 
cases were filed in the superior courts during 1983-84, a 
decrease of 4,930 cases (5.8%) from the total of 85,488 
cases that were filed in 1982-83. There were decreases in 
filings in all case categories (civil, misdemeanor and 
felony). 

Superior court case dispositions decreased from 84,797 
in 1982-83 to 80,290 in 1983-84. There was a decrease in 
the number of dispositions in all three case categories, 
similar to the decrease in case filings. 

More detailed information on the flow of cases through 
the superior courts is included in Part IV of this Report. 



•An amendment to Article IV, Section 12(1) of the State Constitution was approved by the voters at the June, 1 982 election, and effective July 15, 1983, 
the General Assembly has provided for appeals from the Utilities Commission directly to the Supreme Court. See G.S. 7A-29(b). 



34 



DISTRICT COURT JUDGES* 

(As of June 30, 1984) 



District 

1 John T. Chaffin, Elizabeth City 
Grafton G. Beaman, Elizabeth City 
John R. Parker, Elizabeth City 

2 Hallett S. Ward, Washington 
James W. Hardison, Wiliamston 

3 E. Burt Aycock, Jr., Greenville 
J. Randal Hunter, New Bern 

Willie L. Lumpkin, III, Morehead City 

James E. Martin, Bethel 

James E. Regan, Oriental 

H. Horton Roundtree, Greenville 

4 Kenneth W. Turner, Rose Hill 
William M. Cameron, Jr., Jacksonville 
Walter P. Henderson, Trenton 
James N. Martin, Clinton 

Stephen M. Williamson, Kenansville 

5 Gilbert H. Burnett, Wilmington 
Jacqueline Morris-Goodson, Wilmington 
Charles H. Rice, III, Wilmington 

Elton Glenn Tucker, Wilmington 

6 Nicholas Long, Roanoke Rapids 
Harold P. McCoy, Scotland Neck 
Robert E. Williford, Lewiston 

7 George Britt, Tarboro 
Allen W. Harrell, Wilson 
Quentin T. Sumner, Rocky Mount 
Albert S. Thomas, Jr., Wilson 

8 J. Patrick Exum, Kinston 
Kenneth R. Ellis, Fremont 
Rodney R. Goodman, Kinston 
Arnold O. Jones, Goldsboro 
Paul M. Wright, Goldsboro 

9 Claude W. Allen, Jr., Oxford 
Ben U. Allen, Jr., Henderson 
J. Larry Senter, Franklinton 
Charles W. Wilkinson, Oxford 

10 George F. Bason, Raleigh 
Stafford G. Bullock, Raleigh 
Narley L. Cashwell, Raleigh 
William A. Creech, Raleigh 
George R. Greene, Raleigh 
Louis W. Payne, Jr., Raleigh 
Philip O. Redwine, Raleigh 
Russell G. Sherrill, III, Raleigh 



District 

1 1 Elton C. Pridgen, Smithfield 
William Christian, Sanford 
K. Edward Greene, Dunn 
W. Pope Lyon, Smithfield 

12 Sol. G. Cherry, Fayetteville 
Charles Lee Guy, Fayetteville 
Lacy S. Hair, Fayetteville 
Anna E. Keever, Fayetteville 
Warren L. Pate, Raeford 

13 William E. Wood, Whiteville 
William C. Gore, Jr., Whiteville 
Roy D. Trest, Shallotte 

14 J. Milton Read, Jr., Durham 
Karen B. Galloway, Durham 
David Q. LaBarre, Durham 
William G. Pearson, II, Durham 

15A J. B. Allen, Jr., Burlington 
W. S. Harris, Jr., Graham 
James K. Washburn, Burlington 

15B Stanley Peele, Chapel Hill 

Patricia S. Hunt, Hillsborough 
Donald L. Paschal, Siler City 

16 John S. Gardner, Lumberton 
Charles G. McLean, Lumberton 
Herbert L. Richardson, Lumberton 

17A Peter M. McHugh, Reidsville 

Robert R. Blackwell, Yanceyville 

17B Foy Clark, Mount Airy 

Jerry Cash Martin, Mount Airy 

18 Joseph R. John, Greensboro 
Robert Bencini, Jr., High Point 
Robert L. Cecil, High Point 
William L. Daisy, Greensboro 
Thomas G. Foster, Jr., Greensboro 
William K. Hunter, High Point 
Edmund Lowe, High Point 
John F. Yeattes, Jr., Greensboro 

19A Robert L. Warren, Concord 
Adam C. Grant, Jr., Concord 
Clarence E. Horton, Jr., Kannapolis 
Frank M. Montgomery, Salisbury 



*The Chief District Court Judge for each district is listed first. 



35 



DISTRICT COURT JUDGES* 
(As of June 30, 1984) 



District 

19B L.T. Hammond, Jr., Asheboro 
William M. Neely, Asheboro 

20 Donald R. Huffman. Wadesboro 
Michael E. Beale. Southern Pines 
Ronald W. Burris, Albemarle 
Kenneth W. Honneycutt, Monroe 
W. Reece Saunders, Jr., Rockingham 

21 Abner Alexander, Winston-Salem 
Joseph J. Gatto. Winston-Salem 
James A. Harrill, Jr., Winston-Salem 
Robert Kason Keiger, Winston-Salem 

22 Lester P. Martin, Jr., Mocksville 
Samuel A. Cathey, Statesville 
George T. Fuller, Lexington 
Robert W. Johnson, Statesville 

23 Samuel T. Osborne, Wilkesboro 
Max F. Ferree, Wilkesboro 
Edgar B. Gregory, Wilkesboro 

24 Robert H. Lacey, Newland 
Charles P. Ginn, Boone 

R. Alexander Lyerly, Banner Elk 

25 Livingston Vernon, Morganton 
Edward H. Blair, Jr., Lenoir 
Daniel R. Green, Jr., Hickory 
L. Oliver Noble, Jr., Hickory 
Samuel McD. Tate, Morganton 



District 

26 



James E. Lanning, Charlotte 
L. Stanley Brown, Charlotte 
Daphene L. Cantrell, Charlotte 
Resa L. Harris, Charlotte 
Robert P. Johnston, Charlotte 
William G. Jones, Charlotte 
Theodore P. Matus, II, Charlotte 
William H. Scarborough, Charlotte 
W. Terry Sherrill, Charlotte 
T. Michael Todd, Charlotte 



27A Lewis Bulwinkle, Gastonia 

Berlin H. Carpenter, Jr., Gastonia 
J. Ralph Phillips, Gastonia 
Donald E. Ramseur, Gastonia 

27B George W. Hamrick, Shelby 
James T. Bowen, Lincolnton 
John M. Gardner, Shelby 

28 William Marion Styles, Black Mountain 
Earl J. Fowler, Jr., Arden 

Robert L. Harrell, Asheville 
Peter L. Roda, Asheville 

29 Robert T. Gash, Brevard 
Loto J. Greenlee, Marion 

Zoro J. Guice, Jr., Hendersonville 
Thomas N. Hix, Hendersonville 

30 Robert Leatherwood, III, Bryson City 
John J. Snow, Jr., Murphy 

Danny E. Davis, Waynesville 



The Association of District Court Judges 

(Officers as of June 30, 1984) 

J. B. Allen, Jr., Burlington, President 

Abner Alexander, Winston-Salem, Vice President 

E. Burt Aycock, Jr., Greenville, Secretary-Treasurer 

George M. Britt, Tarboro 
William G. Pearson, II, Durham 
L. T. Hammond, Jr., Asheboro 
Earl J. Fowler, Jr., Arden 

Additional Executive Committee Members 



*The Chief District Court Judge for each district is listed first. 



36 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1983-84 
The District Courts 



North Carolina's district courts are trial courts with 
original jurisdiction of the overwhelming majority of the 
cases handled by the State's court system. There were 142 
district court judges serving in 34 judicial districts during 
1983-84. These judges are elected to four-year terms by 
the voters of their respective districts. 

A total of 614 magistrate positions were authorized as 
of June 30, 1984. Of this number, about 100 positions 
were specified as part-time. Magistrates are appointed by 
the senior resident superior court judge from nominations 
submitted by the clerk of superior court of their county, 
and they are supervised by the chief district court judge of 
their district. 



Jurisdiction 

The jurisdiction of the district court extends to virtually 
all misdemeanor cases, probable cause hearings in most 
felony cases, all juvenile proceedings, involuntary com- 
mitments and recommitments to mental hospitals, and 
domestic relations cases. The district courts have concur- 
rent jurisdiction with the superior courts in general civil 
cases, but the district courts are the proper courts for the 
trial of civil cases where the amount in controversy is 
$10,000 or less. Upon the plaintiff's request, a civil case in 
which the amount in controversy is $ 1 ,000 or less, may be 
designated a "small claims"case and assigned by the chief 
district court judge to a magistrate for hearing. Magis- 
trates are empowered to try worthless check criminal 
cases when the value of the check does not exceed $500. In 
addition, they may accept written appearances, waivers of 
trial, and pleas of guilty in such worthless check cases 
when the amount of the check is $500 or less, the offender 
has made restitution, and the offender has fewer than four 
previous worthless check convictions. Magistrates may 
accept waviers of appearance and pleas of guilty in traffic 
cases, and in boating, hunting and fishing violation 
cases,* for which a uniform schedule of fines has been 
adopted by the Conference of Chief District Judges. Mag- 
istrates also conduct initial hearings to fix conditions of 
release for arrested defendants, and they are empowered 
to issue arrest and search warrants. 



Administration 

A chief district judge is appointed for each judicial 
district by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court from 
among the elected judges in the respective districts. Sub- 
ject to the Chief Justice's general supervision, each chief 
judge exercises administrative supervision and authority 
over the operation of the district courts and magistrates in 
his district. Each chief judge is responsible for: scheduling 
sessions of district court and assigningjudges; supervising 
the calendaring of noncriminal cases; assigning matters to 



magistrates; making arrangements for court reporting 
and jury trials in civil cases; and supervising the discharge 
of clerical functions in the district courts. 

The chief district court judges meet in conference at 
least once a year upon the call of the Chief Justice of the 
Supreme Court. Among other matters, this annual con- 
ference adopts a uniform schedule of traffic offenses and 
fines for their violation for use by magistrates and clerks 
of court in accepting defendants' waivers of appearance 
and guilty pleas. 



The Conference of Chief District Court Judges 

(Officers as of June 30, 1984) 

Robert T. Gash, Brevard, Chairman 

Lester P. Martin, Jr., Mocksville, Vice Chairman 



Expenditures 

Total expenditures for the operation of the district 
courts in 1983-84 amounted to $19,845,501. This is an 
increase of 9.5% over 1982-83 expenditures of 
$18,1 19,464. Included in this total are the personnel costs 
of court reporters and secretaries as well as the personnel 
costs of the 142 district court judges and approximately 
614 magistrates. The 1983-84 total is 19.19? of the General 
Fund expenditures for the operation of the entire Judicial 
Department, about the same percentage share of total 
Judicial Department expenditures that the district courts 
took for the 1982-83 fiscal year. 

Caseload 

During 1983-84 the statewide total number of district 
court filings (civil and criminal) increased only 4,608 
(.3%) over the total number reported for 1982-83. Not 
including juvenile proceedings and mental hospital com- 
mitment hearings, the filing total in 1983-84 was 
1 ,450, 1 79. The motor vehicle criminal case category regis- 
tered the only increase: 39,886 cases (5.5 f ;( ) more than the 
number of motor vehicle criminal cases in 1982-83. There 
were decreases in filing totals for 1983-84, ranging from 
4.49c to 5.7%, in the general civil, civil magistrate, and 
non-motor vehicle criminal case categories, compared 
with such totals for 1982-83. 

More detailed information on district court civil and 
criminal caseloads and on juvenile case activity is con- 
tained in Part IV of this Report. 



*Chapter 586. 1983 Session Laws; the unitorm schedule ol lines adopted b\ Chid District Judges becomes effective Jul\ I, 1984 



37 



DISTRICT ATTORNEYS 
(As of June 30, 1984) 



District 
1 H. P. WILLIAMS, JR., Elizabeth City 

: W ILLIAM C. GRIFFIN. JR., Williamston 

3A THOMAS D. HAIGWOOD. Greenville 

3B WILLIAM D. McFADYEN, New Bern 

4 WILLIAM H. ANDREWS, Jacksonville 

5 JERRY L. SPIVEY. Wilmington 

6 DAVID H. BEARD, JR., Murfreesboro 

7 HOWARD S. BONEY, JR., Tarboro 

8 DONALD JACOBS, Goldsboro 

9 DAVID R. WATERS, Oxford 

10 J. RANDOLPH RILEY, Raleigh 
1 1 JOHN W. TWISDALE, Smithfield 

12 EDWARD W. GRANNIS, JR., Fayetteville 

13 MICHAEL F. EASLEY, Whiteville 

14 RONALD L. STEPHENS, Durham 
15A GEORGE E. HUNT, Graham 

15B WADE BARBER, JR., Pittsboro 

16 JOE FREEMAN BRITT, Lumberton 



District 

17A PHILIP W. ALLEN, Wentworth 

17B HAROLD D. BOWMAN, Dobson 
18 D. LAMAR DOWDA, Greensboro 
19A JAMES F. ROBERTS, Concord 
19B GARLAND N. YATES, Asheboro 

20 CARROLL LOWDER, Monroe 

21 DONALD K. TISDALE, Winston-Salem 

22 H. W. ZIMMERMAN, JR., Lexington 

23 MICHAEL A. ASHBURN, North Wilkesboro 

24 JAMES THOMAS RUSHER, Marshall 

25 ROBERT E. THOMAS, Hickory 

26 PETER S. GILCHRIST, Charlotte 
27A JOSEPH G. BROWN, Gastonia 

27B W. HAMPTON CHILDS, JR., Lincolnton 

28 RONALD C. BROWN, Asheville 

29 ALAN C. LEONARD, Rutherfordton 

30 MARCELLUS BUCHANAN, III, Sylva 



The District Attorneys Association 

(Officers as of June 30, 1984) 

Ronald C. Brown, Asheville, President 

William H. Andrews, Jacksonville, Vice President 

David R. Waters, Oxford, Vice President for 
Legislative Affairs 

Mary Easley, Southport, Secretary-Treasurer 



38 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1983-84 



The District Attorneys 



The State is divided into 35 prosecutorial districts 
which, with one exception, correspond to the 34judicial 
districts. By act of the 1981 Session of the General 
Assembly, the 3rd Judicial District was divided into two 
separate prosecutorial districts, Prosecutorial Districts 
3A and 3B, effective October 1, 1981. Prosecutorial Dis- 
trict 3A consists of Pitt County, and Prosecutorial Dis- 
trict 3B is comprised of Craven, Carteret, and Pamlico 
(G.S. 7A-60). A district attorney is elected by the voters in 
each of the 35 districts for four-year terms. 

Duties 

The district attorney represents the State in all criminal 
actions brought in the superior and district courts in his 
district. In addition to his prosecutorial functions, the 
district attorney is responsible for calendaring criminal 
cases for trial. 

Resources 

Each district attorney may employ on a full-time basis 
the number of assistant district attorneys authorized by 
statute for his district. As of June 30, 1984, a total of 213 
assistant district attorneys were authorized for the 35 
prosecutorial districts. The district attorney of District 26 
(Mecklenburg County) had the largest staff ( 19 assistants) 
and the district attorney of District 17B and District 24 
had the smallest staff (two assistants). 

Each district attorney is authorized to employ an 
administrative assistant to aid in preparing casers for trial 
and to expedite the criminal court docket. The district 
attorney in 18 of the 35 districts is authorized to employ 
and investigatorial assistant who aids in the investigation 
of cases prior to trial, and in 10 districts, the district 
attorney is authorized to employ a witness coordinator. 

1983-1984 Caseload 

A total of 68,076 criminal cases were filed in the super- 
ior courts during 1983-84, consisting of 42,160 felony 
cases and 25,916 misdemeanor appeals from the district 
courts. The total number of filings in the superior courts 
(felonies and misdemeanors) in the previous year was 
7 1 ,594. The decrease of 3,5 1 8 cases in 1 983-84 represents a 
4.9% decrease from the 1982-83 total. 

Total criminal cases disposed of by the superior courts 
in 1983-84 amounted to 67,009. There were 41 ,698 felony 
dispositions; the number of misdemeanor cases disposed 
of was 25,311. Compared with 1982-83, total criminal 
case dispositions decreased by 3, 1 1 1 from the 70, 1 20 cases 
disposed of in that fiscal year. 

The median ages of 1983-84 criminal cases at disposi- 
tion in the superior courts were 80 days for felony cases 
and 65 days for misdemeanor appeals. In 1982-83, the 
median age of felony cases at disposition was 8 1 days, and 



the median age at disposition for misdemeanor appeals 
was 66 days. 

Dispositions by jury trial in the superior courts, for 
felonies and misdemeanors, totalled 3,505 cases, or 5.2% 
of total criminal case dispositions in the superior courts. 
This was a decrease from jury dispositions of 3,999 (5.7% 
of total dispositions) during the 1982-83 year. As is evi- 
dent, a very small proportion of all criminal cases utilize 
the great proportion of superior court time and resources 
required to handle the criminal caseload. 

By contrast, in 1983-84 a majority (36,934 or 55. 1%) of 
criminal case dispositions in superior courts were pro- 
cessed on submission of guilty pleas, not requiring a trial. 
This was very close to the 54.2% of guilty plea dispositions 
reported for 1982-83. 

"Dismissal by district attorney"accounted for a signifi- 
cant percentage of all dispositions during 1983-84: a total 
of 18, 179 cases, or 27. 1% of all dispositions. This propor- 
tion is comparable to that recorded for prior years. Many 
of the dismissals involved the situation of two or more 
cases pending against the same defendant, resulting in a 
plea bargain agreement where the defendant pleads guilty 
to some charges in exchange for a dismissal of others. 

There was a decrease in the number of "speedy trial 
rule" dismissals in superior courts, from 92 in 1982-83 to 
82 in 1983-84. 

The total number of criminal cases disposed of in the 
superior courts was 1 ,067 cases less than the total number 
of cases filed in 1983-84. Consequently, the number of 
pending criminal cases in superior court increased from 
1 1 ,28 1 at the beginning of the fiscal year to a total at year's 
end of 12,348, an increase of 9.5%. 

The median age of pending felony cases in the superior 
courts increased from 80 days on June 30, 1983 to 89 days 
on June 30, 1984. An increase was also recorded for 
misdemeanor appeals, with the median age of pending 
misdemeanor appeals increasing from 66 days on June 30, 
1983 to 78 days on June 30, 1984. 

In the district courts, a total of 1 , 1 5 1 , 1 83 criminal cases 
were filed during 1983-84. This total consisted of 768,403 
motor vehicle criminal cases and 382,780 non-motor 
vehicle criminal cases. A comparison of total filings in 
1 983-84 with total filings (1,1 29,032) in 1 982-83 reveals an 
increase in district court criminal filing activity of 22, 1 5 1 
cases or 2.0%. An increase in motor vehicle criminal case 
filings was responsible for all of this increase. Filings in 
the motor vehicle case category rose by 39,886 cases, from 
728,517 cases in 1982-83 to 768,403 cases in 1983-84, an 
increase of 5.5%. 

As motor vehicle criminal case filings rose in 1983-84, 
filings in the non-motor vehicle criminal case category fell 
by 17,735 cases (4.4%), from a total of 400,5 15 in 1982-83 
to 382,780 cases in 1983-84. 

Total dispositions in district courts during 1983-84 in 
the motor vehicle criminal case category amounted to 
757,617 cases. As in prior years, a substantial portion 



39 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1983-84 



(437,665 cases or 57.8%) was disposed of by waiver of 
appearance and entry of plea of guilty before a clerk or 
magistrate. This substantial number of criminal cases did 
not. of course, require action by the district attorneys' 
offices and should not be regarded as having been a part 
of the district attorneys'caseload. The remaining 3 19,952 
motor vehicle cases were disposed of by means other than 
a waiver. This balance was 3, 1 77 cases, or 1 .0% more than 
the 316,775 such dispositions in 1982-83. (The clerks of 
court no longer report motor vehicle criminal cases by 
case file number to the Administrative Office of the 
Courts. Only summary total number of filings and dispo- 
sitions are reported. Therefore, it is not possible by 
computer-processing to obtain pending case data for the 
motor vehicle criminal case category.) 

With respect to non-motor vehicle criminal case dispo- 
sitions, a total of 380,643 such cases were disposed of in 
district courts in 1983-84. As with superior court criminal 
cases, the most frequent method of disposition was by 
entry of guilty plea; the next most frequent was dismissal 
by the district attorney. Some 143,355 cases, or 37.7% of 



the dispositions were by guilty pleas. An additional 
91,720 cases, or 24.1%, of the total were disposed of by 
procutor dismissal. There were no "speedy trial rule" 
dismissals, compared with two such dispositions in 1982- 

83. The remaining cases were disposed of by waiver 
(12.8%), trial (10.6%), or by other means (14.8%). 

During 1983-84, the median age at disposition of non- 
motor vehicle criminal cases was 26 days, compared with 
24 days at disposition for 1982-83. 

Total non-motor vehicle criminal dispositions were 
2,137 cases less than the total of such filings during 1983- 

84. The number of non-motor vehicle criminal cases 
pending at year's end was 58,727, compared with a total of 
56,590 at the beginning of the year, an increase of 2,137 
(3.8%) in the number of pending cases. The median age 
for pending non-motor vehicle cases dropped from 59 
days on June 30, 1983 to 44 days on June 30, 1984. 

Additional information on the criminal caseloads in 
superior and district courts is included in Part IV of this 
Report. 



40 



CLERKS OF SUPERIOR COURT 
(As of June 30, 1984) 



COUNTY 

Alamance 

Alexander 

Alleghany 

Anson 

Ashe 

Avery 

Beaufort 

Bertie 

Bladen 

Brunswick 

Buncombe 

Burke 

Cabarrus 

Caldwell 

Camden 

Carteret 

Caswell 

Catawba 

Chatham 

Cherokee 

Chowan 

Clay 

Cleveland 

Columbus 

Craven 

Cumberland 

Currituck 

Dare 

Davidson 

Davie 

Duplin 

Durham 

Edgecombe 

Forsyth 

Franklin 

Gaston 

Gates 

Graham 

Granville 

Greene 

Guilford 

Halifax 

Harnett 

Haywood 

Henderson 

Hertford 

Hoke 

Hyde 

Iredell 

Jackson 



CLERK OF COURT 

Louise B. Wilson 
Seth Chapman 
Joan B. Atwood 
R. Frank Hightower 
Virginia W. Johnson 
Robert A. McKee 
Thomas S. Payne, 111 
Thomas S. Speight 
Hilda H. Coleman 
K. Gregory Bellamy 
J. Ray Elingburg 
Major A. Joines 
Estus B. White 
Jeanette Turner 
Catherine W. McCoy 
Mary Austin 
Janet H. Cobb 
Eunice W. Mauney 
Janice Oldham 
Rose Mary Crooke 
Marjorie H. Hollowell 
R. L. Cherry 
Ruth S. Dedmon 
Lacy R. Thompson 
Dorothy Pate 
George T. Griffin 
Wiley B. Elliot 
Betty Mann 
Hugh Shepherd 
Delores C. Jordan 
John A. Johnson 
James Leo Carr 
Curtis Weaver 
A.E. Blackburn 
Ralph S. Knott 
Betty B. Jenkins 
Frank L. Rice 
O.W. Hooper, Jr. 
Mary Ruth C. Nelms 
Joyce J. Harrell 
James Lee Knight 
Ellen C. Neathery 
Georgia Lee Brown 
William G. Henry 
Thomas H. Thompson 
Richard T. Vann 
Juanita Edmund 
Lenora R. Bright 
Carl G. Smith 
Frank Watson, Jr. 



COUNTY 

Johnston 

Jones 

Lee 

Lenoir 

Lincoln 

Macon 

Madison 

Martin 

McDowell 

Mecklenburg 

Mitchell 

Montgomery 

Moore 

Nash 

New Hanover 

Northampton 

Onslow 

Orange 

Pamlico 

Pasquotank 

Pender 

Perquimans 

Person 

Pitt 

Polk 

Randolph 

Richmond 

Robeson 

Rockingham 

Rowan 

Rutherford 

Sampson 

Scotland 

Stanly 

Stokes 

Surry 

Swain 

Transylvania 

Tyrrell 

Union 

Vance 

Wake 

Warren 

Washington 

Watauga 

Wayne 

Wilkes 

Wilson 

Yadkin 

Yancey 



CLERK OF COURT 

Will R. Crocker 
Ronald H. Metts 
Sion H. Kelly 
Claude C. Davis 
Nellie L. Bess 
Lois S. Morris 
James W. Cody 
Mary K. Wynne 
Ruth B. Williams 
Robert M. Blackburn 
Arthur Ray Ledford 
Charles M. Johnson 
Rachel H. Comer 
Rachel M. Joyner 
Louise D. Rehder 
R. Jennings White, Jr. 
Everitte Barbee 
Frank S. Frederick 
Mary Jo Potter 
Frances W. Thompson 
Frances N. Futch 
W.J. Ward 

W. Thomas Humphries 
Sandra Gaskins 
Judy P. Arledge 
John H. Skeen 
Miriam F. Greene 
Dixie 1. Barrington 
Frankie C. Williams 
Francis Glover 
Joan M. Jenkins 
Charlie T. McCullen 
C. Whitfield Gibson, Jr. 
David R. Fisher 
Pauline Kirkman 
David J. Beal 
Sara Robinson 
Marian M. McMahon 
Jessie L. Spencer 
Nola H. McCollum 
Mary Lou M. Barnett 
J. Russell Nipper 
Richard E. Hunter, Jr. 
Timothy L. Spear 
John T. Bingham 
Floyd R. Evans 
Wayne Roope 
William G. Stewart 
Harold J. Long 
F. Warren Hughes 



41 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1983-84 



The Clerks of Superior Court 



A Clerk of Superior Court is elected for a four-year 
term by the voters in each of North Carolina's 100 coun- 
ties. The Clerk has jurisdiction to hear and decide special 
proceedings and is. ex officio, judge of probate, in addi- 
tion to performing record-keeping and administrative 
functions for both the superior and district courts of his 
county. 

Jurisdiction 

The original jurisdiction of the clerk of superior court 
includes the probate of wills and administration of dece- 
dents' estates. It also includes such "special proceedings" 
as adoptions, condemnations of private property under 
the public's right of- eminent domain, proceedings to 
establish boundaries, foreclosures, and certain proceed- 
ings to administer the estates of minors and incompetent 
adults. The right of appeal from the clerks'judgments in 
such cases lies to the superior court. 

The clerk of superior court is also empowered to issue 
search warrants and arrest warrants, subpoenas, and 
other process necessary to execute the judgments entered 
in the superior and district courts of his county. For 
certain misdemeanor criminal offenses, the clerk is auth- 
orized to accept defendants' wavier of appearance and 
plea of guilty and to impose a fine in accordance with a 
schedule established by the Conference of Chief District 
Court Judges. 

Administration 

The clerk of superior court performs administrative 
duties for both the superior and district courts of his 
county. Among these duties are the maintenance of court 
records and indexes, the control and accounting of funds, 
and the furnishing of information to the Administrative 
Office of the Courts. 

In most counties, the clerk continues to perform cer- 
tain functions related to preparation of civil case calen- 
dars, and in many counties, the clerk's staff assists the 
district attorney in preparing criminal case calendars as 
well. Policy and oversight responsibility for civil case 
calendaring is vested in the State's senior resident super- 
ior courtjudgesand chief district court judges. However, 
day-to-day civil calendar preparation is the clerk's respon- 
sibility in all districts except those served by trial court 
administrators. 



Expenditures 

A total of 530,479,493 was expended in 1983-84 for the 
operation of the 100 clerk of superior court offices. In 
addition to the salaries and other expenses of the clerks 
and their staffs, this total includes expenditures for jurors' 
fees, and witness expenses. 



Total expenditures for clerks' offices in 1983-84 
amounted to 29.3% of the General Fund expenditures for 
the operations of the entire Judicial Department. 

1983-84 Caseload 

During 1 983-84, estate case filings totalled 39,477. This 
was a slight increase over the 39,188 cases filed in 1 982-83. 
Estate case dispositions totalled 39,872 cases in 1983-84, 
or 4.6% more than the previous year's total of 38,110. 
Dispositions exceeded filings by 395 cases. This produced 
a decrease of the same amount in the number of estate 
cases pending at the end of the year. 

A total of 30,645 special proceedings were filed before 
the 100 clerks of superior court in 1983-84. This is a 
decrease of 1,190 cases (3.7%) from the 31,835 filings in 
the previous fiscal year. During the year, total special 
proceedings dispositions amounted to 29,007 cases, with 
a resulting increase in the number of cases pending of 
8.0%, from 20,433 on July 1 , 1983 to 22,07 1 as of June 30, 
1984. 

The clerks of superior court are also responsible for 
handling the records of all case filings and dispositions in 
the superior and district courts. The total number of 
superior court case filings during the 1983-84 year was 
80,558 and the total number of district court filings, not 
including juvenile proceedings and mental hospital com- 
mitment hearings, was 1,450,179. 

More detailed information on the estates and special 
proceedings caseloads is included in Part IV of this 
Report. 



Association of Clerks of Superior Court 

(Officers as of June 30, 1984) 

Nola H. McCollum, Union County, 
President 

Major Joines, Burke County, 
First Vice President 

David J. Beal, Surry County 
Second Vice President 

John Johnson, Duplin County 

Secretary 
Frances W. Thompson, Pasquotank County 

Treasurer 



42 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1983-84 



Juvenile Services Division 



The Juvenile Services Division of the Administrative 
Office of the Courts provides intake, probation and after- 
care services to juveniles who are before the District 
Courts for delinquent matters, i.e., violations of the crimi- 
nal code, including motor vehicle violations; and for 
undisciplined matters, such as running away from home, 
being truant, and being beyond the parents' disciplinary 
control. 

Intake is the screening of complaints alleging delin- 
quent or undisciplined behavior by children, to determine 
whether petitions should be filed. During the 1983-84 year 
a total of 18,51 1 complaints were brought to the attention 
of intake counselors. Of this number, 11,236 (61%) were 
approved for filing, and 7,275 (39%) were not approved 
for filing. 

Probation and aftercare refer to supervision of children 
in their own communities. Probation is authorized by 
judicial order. Aftercare service is provided for juveniles 
after their release from a training school. (Protective 
supervision is also a form of court-ordered supervision 
within the community; and this service is combined with 
probation and aftercare.) 

In 1983-84 a total of 14,420 juveniles were supervised in 
the probation and aftercare program. 



Expenditures 

The Juvenile Services Division is State-funded. The 
expenditures for fiscal year 1983-84 totalled $7,840,587. 
This was an increase of 5% over the 1982-83 expenditures. 
The 1983-84 expenditures amounted to 7.6% of all Gen- 
eral Fund expenditures for the operation of the entire 
Judicial Department, close to the same percentage share 
of total Judicial Department expenditures for the Di- 
vision as in the previous fiscal year. 



Administration 

The Administrator of the Juvenile Services Division is 
appointed by the Director of the Administrative Office of 
the Courts. A chief court counselor is appointed for each 
judicial district by the Administrator of the Juvenile Ser- 
vices Division, with the approval of the Chief District 
Court Judge and the Administrative Officer of the 
Courts. Subject to the Administrator's general supervi- 
sion, each chief court counselor exercises administrative 
supervision over the operation of the court counseling 
services in the respective districts. 



Juvenile Services Division Staff 
(As of June 30, 1984) 

Thomas A. Danek, Administrator 

Edward F. Taylor, Assistant Administrator 

John T. Wilson, Program Supervisor 

Jennie E. Cannon, Education Coordinator 



43 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1983-84 



Juvenile Services Division 
(As of June 30, 1984) 



Judicial 




District 


Chief Court Counselors 


1 


Robert Hendrix 


2 


Vacant 


3 


Eve C. Rogers 


4 


Ida Ray Miles 


5 


William T. Childs 


6 


John R. Brady 


7 


Nancy C. Patteson 


8 


Harold Hinnant 


9 


Tommy Lewis 


10 


Vacant 


11 


Henry C. Cox 


12 


Phil T. Utley 


13 


Jimmy Godwin 


14 


Fred Elkins 


15A 


Harry Derr 


15B 


Harold Rogerson 



Judicial 




District 


Chief Court Counselors 


16 


Robert Hughes 


17Aand 17B 


Martha Lauten 


18 


J. Manley Dodson 


19Aand 19B 


James Queen 


20 


Jimmy Craig 


21 


James J. Weakland 


22 


Carl T. Duncan 


23 


Vacant 


24 


Lynn Hughes 


25 


Lee Cox 


26 


James Yancey 


27A 


Yvonne Hall 


27B 


Gloria Newman 


28 


Louis Parrish 


29 


Kenneth Lanning 


30 


Betty G. Alley 



THE COURT COUNSELORS ASSOCIATION 

(Officers for 1983-84) 

Executive Committee Members 

John A. Auten, Jr., President 

James J. Weakland, President-elect 

Anne Mobley, Secretary 

Bill Fishel, Treasurer 

Harold Rogerson, Parliamentarian 



1982-84 

Pat Jackson 
Eleanor P. Causey 
Pam Honeycutt 



Board Members 

1982-85 1983-86 



John Brady 
Mark Vinson 
Horace Walser 



Fred Elliott 
Jan Dial Smith 
Thomas A. Danek 



44 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1983-84 
Public Defenders 



During 1983-84, there were seven public defender offi- 
ces in North Carolina, serving Judicial Districts 3,* 12, 
1 5B, 1 8, 26, 27A, and 28. The public defender for District 
28 is appointed by the senior resident superior court judge 
from recommendations submitted by the district bar; for 
other districts, the appointment is by the Governor from 
recommendations of the respective district bars. Their 
terms are four years. Each public defender is by statute 
provided a minimum of one full-time assistant public 
defender and additional full-time or part-time assistants 
as may be authorized by the Administrative Office of the 
Courts. 



1983-84 Caseload 

The seven public defender offices disposed of cases 
involving a total of 16,825 defendents during 1983-84. 
This was an increase of 422 defendants, or 2.6%, over the 
16,403 defendants represented during 1982-83. 

Additional information concerning the operation of 
these offices is found in Part 111 of this Annual Report. 



PUBLIC DEFENDERS 
(As of June 30, 1984) 



Entitlement of Indigents to Counsel 

A person is determined to be indigent if he is found 
"financially unable to secure legal representation." He is 
entitled to State-paid legal representation in: any pro- 
ceeding which may result in (or which seeks relief from) 
confinement; a fine of $500 or more; or extradition to 
another State; a proceeding alleging mental illness or 
incapacity which may result in hospitalization, steriliza- 
tion, or the loss of certain property rights; and juvenile 
proceedings which may result in confinement, transfer to 
superior court for a felony trial, or termination of paren- 
tal rights. 

Most of the cases of State-paid representation of indi- 
gents in the districts with public defenders are handled by 
the public defender's office. However, the court may in 
certain circumstances — such as existence of a potential 
conflict of interest — assign private counsel to represent 
an indigent defendant. In the other 28 districts, the 
assigned private counsel system was the only one used. 



District 3 

Donald C. Hicks, III, Greenville 

District 12 

Mary Ann Tally, Fayetteville 

District 15B 
John Kirk Osborn, Chapel Hill 

District 18 

Wallace G. Harrelson, Greensboro 

District 26 

Isabel S. Day, Charlotte 

District 27A 

Rowell C. Cloninger, Jr., Gastonia 

District 28 
J. Robert Hufstader, Asheville 



Expenditures 

A total of $2,531,928 was expended for the operation 
of the seven public defenders' offices during 1983-84. This 
was an increase of $312,162 (14.1%) over the 1982-83 
total of $2,2 19,766. 



'Public defender serves only two counties of the four in District 3: Pitt 
and Carteret. 



The Association of Public Defenders 

(Officers as of June 30, 1984) 

Wallace G. Harrelson, President 
J. Robert Hufstader, Vice President 
Steve Ward, Secretary-Treasurer 



45 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1983-84 

The Office of the Appellate Defender 

(Staff as of June 30, 1984) 



Adam Stein, Appellate Defender 
Assistant Appellate Defenders 



David W. Dorey 
Robin E. Hudson 
Malcolm R. Hunter, 



Jr. 



Lorinzo L. Joyner 
Ann B. Petersen 



The Appellate Defender Office began operation as a 
State-funded program on October 1, 1981. (Prior to that 
date, appellate defender services were funded by a one- 
year federal grant.) In accord with the assignments made 
by trial court judges, it is the responsibility of the Appel- 
late Defender and his staff to provide criminal defense 
appellate services to indigent persons who are appealing 
their convictions to the N. C. Supreme Court, the N. C. 
Court of Appeals, or to Federal courts. 

The Appellate Defender is appointed by the Governor 
for a term of four years, but in carrying out his duties he is 
under the general supervision of the Chief Justice. The 
Chief Justice may, consistent with the resources available 
to the Appellate Defender and to insure quality criminal 
defense services, authorize certain appeals to be assigned 
to a local public defender office or to private assigned 
counsel instead of to the Appellate Defender. 



1983-84 Caseload 

As of July 1 , 1983, the Appellate Defender had 42 cases 
pending in the North Carolina Supreme Court. During 
the 1983-84 year, a total of 45 additional appeals to the 
Supreme Court were assigned to the Appellate Defend- 
er's Office, and during that year a total of 53 cases in the 
Supreme Court were disposed of. This left 34 cases pend- 
ing as of June 30, 1984. During the 1983-84 year, the 
Appellate Defender and his staff filed a total of 37 briefs 
and 42 petitions in the Supreme Court. 

As of July 1, 1983, the Appellate Defender had 139 
cases pending in the North Carolina Court of Appeals. 
During the 1983-84 year, a total of 161 additional appeals 
to the Court of Appeals were assigned to the Appellate 
Defender's Office, and during that year, a total of 130 
cases in the Court of Appeals were disposed of. This left 
170 cases pending as of June 30, 1984. During the 1983-84 
year, the Appellate Defender and his staff filed a total of 
102 briefs and 16 petitions in the Court of Appeals. 



46 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1983-84 



The North Carolina Courts Commission 



(Members as of June 30, 1984) 



Appointed by the Governor 

H. Parks Helms, Charlotte, Chairman 
Member, N.C. House of Representatives 

Wade Barber, Jr., Pittsboro 
District Attorney 

Daniel T. Blue, Jr., Raleigh 

Member, N.C. House of Representatives 

Rebecca B. Hundley, Thomasville 

Louise B. Wilson, Graham 
Clerk of Court 

Dennis J. Winner, Asheville 
Member, N. C. State Senate 

Appointed by President of the Senate 
(Lieutenant Governor) 

Julian R. Allsbrook, Roanoke Rapids 
Member, N.C. Senate 

Fielding Clark, II, Hickory 

E. Lawrence Davis, Raleigh 

Alfred M. Goodwin, Louisburg 
Magistrate 

R.C. Soles, Jr., Tabor City 
Member, N. C. Senate 

Howard F. Twiggs, Raleigh 

Ex-Officio (Non-Voting) 

Robert M. Clay, Raleigh 

N.C. Bar Association Representative 

William K. Davis, Raleigh 
N.C. State Bar Representative 

Franklin E. Freeman, Jr., Raleigh 
Administrative Officer of the Courts 



Appointed by the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives 

David M. Britt, Raleigh 

Retired Associate Justice, N. C. Supreme Court 

Robert C. Hunter, Marion 

Member, N.C. House of Representatives 

Ralph S. Knott, Louisburg 
Clerk of Court 

Hugh A. Lee, Rockingham 
Member, N. C. House of Representatives 

Marvin D. Musselwhite, Jr., Raleigh 
Member, N.C. House of Representatives 

Dennis A. Wicker, Sanford 

Member, N.C. House of Representatives 

Appointed by the Chief Justice of the 
N.C. Supreme Court 

Burley B. Mitchell, Jr., Raleigh 
Associate Justice, N. C. Supreme Court 

Clifton E. Johnson, Charlotte 
Judge, N. C. Court of Appeals 

Giles R. Clark, Elizabethtown 
Superior Court Judge 

Forrest A. Ferrell, Hickory 
Superior Court Judge 

Nicholas Long, Roanoke Rapids 
District Court Judge 

Samuel McD. Tate, Morganton 
District Court Judge 



The North Carolina Courts Commission was reestab- 
lished by the 1979 General Assembly "to make continu- 
ing studies of the structure, organization, jurisdiction, 
procedures and personnel of the Judicial Department 
and of the General Court of Justice and to make recom- 
mendations to the General Assembly for such changes 
therein as will facilitate the administration of justice". 
Initially, the Commission was comprised of 15 voting 
members, with five each appointed by the Governor, the 
President of the Senate (Lieutenant Governor), and the 
Speaker of the House. The Commission also had three ex 
officio members as shown above. 



The 1 98 1 General Assembly amended the statutes per- 
taining to the Courts Commission, to increase the 
number of voting members from 15 to 23, with the Gov- 
ernor to appoint seven voting members, the President of 
the Senate to appoint eight voting members, and the 
Speaker of the House to appoint eight voting members. 
The non-voting ex officio members remained the same: a 
representative of the North Carolina Bar Association, a 
representative of the North Carolina State Bar, and the 
Administrative Officer of the Courts. 

The 1983 Session of the General Assembly further 
amended G.S. 7A-506, to revise the voting membership 



47 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1983-84 
The North Carolina Courts Commission 



of the Commission. Effective July 1. 1983, the Commis- 
sion is to consist of 24 voting members, six to be 
appointed by the Governor; six to be appointed by the 
Speaker of the House: six to be appointed by the Presi- 
dent of the Senate; and six to be appointed by the Chief 
Justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court. The Gov- 
ernor continues to appoint the Chairman of the Commis- 
sion, from among its legislative members. The non- 
voting ex officio membership of three persons remains 
the same. 

Of the six appointees of the Chief Justice, one is to be a 
Justice of the Supreme Court, one is to be a Judge of the 
Court of Appeals, two are to be judges of superior court, 
and two are to be judges of district court. 

Of the six appointees of the Governor, one is to be a 
district attorney, one a practicing attorney, one a clerk of 
superior court, and three are to be members or former 
members of the General Assembly and at least one of 
these shall not be an attorney. 

Of the six appointees of the Speaker of the House, at 
least three are to be practicing attorneys, and three are to 
be members or formers members of the General Assem- 
bly, and at least one of these three is not to be an attorney. 

Of the six appointees of the President of the Senate, at 
least three are to be practicing attorneys, three are to be 
members or former members of the General Assembly, 
and at least one is to be a magistrate. 

During the 1983-84 year the Courts Commission had a 
total of seven meetings, with public hearings held in Roa- 
noke Rapids and in Raleigh. 

In its report to the 1984 Session of the General Assem- 
bly, the Commission reaffirmed its support for proposals 
introduced at the 1983 Session but not acted upon, and 
which were eligible for consideration in 1984. The prop- 
osals were: 

• To allow recall of retired appellate Supreme Court 
Justices to service on either the Supreme Court or 
the Court of Appeals (H 310). 



• To allow magistrates salary credit for previous expe- 
rience in a clerk's office or as a law enforcement 
officer (H 473). 

• To classify minor traffic offenses as infractions, and 
provide a procedure for disposition of infractions ( H 
491). 

• To allow trial judges to award attorneys fees to the 
prevailing party in certain civil actions (H474). The 
first three bills listed above were postponed indefi- 
nitely at the 1984 "short" session. The fourth bill was 
enacted into law (G.S. 6-21.5). 

The Courts Commission also recommended two new 
bills to the 1984 Session. One provided clarifying 
amendments to the court cost provisions which were 
approved at the 1983 Session; and that proposal was 
enacted into law. The other bill was designed to clarify 
that part-time magistrates would be entitled to earn 
retirement credits in the state retirement system and to 
receive benefits under the State's health plan. No action 
was taken on that proposal by the 1984 Session; and it is 
expected to be reintroduced and considered at the 1985 
Session of the General Assembly. 

In addition, the Commission expressed its general sup- 
port for additional appropriations for the court system, to 
enable the courts to handle the significant impact pro- 
duced by two major pieces of legislation enacted in 1983: 
the Safe Roads Act and the Child Support Enforcement 
Act. 

Finally, the Commission recommended the necessary 
funding for two additional steps in the longevity pay 
schedule forjudges. Such longevity pay was approved at 
the 1984 Session, forjudges as well as for district attor- 
neys and clerks of court. 



48 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1983-84 

The Judicial Standards Commission 
(Members as of June 30, 1984) 



Appointed by the Chief Justice 

Court of Appeals Judge Gerald Arnold, 
Fuquay-Varina, Chairman 

Superior Court Judge W. Douglas Albright, 
Greensboro 

District Court Judge L. T. Hammond, Jr., Asheboro 



Appointed by the Governor 

Susan Whittington, Wilkesboro, Secretary 
Veatrice C. Davis, Fayetteville 



Elected by the Council of the N.C. State Bar 

Jerome B. Clark, Jr., Fayetteville, Vice Chairman 
E. K. Powe, Durham 



Deborah R. Carrington, Executive Secretary 



THE JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION 



July 1, 1983 - June 30, 1984 



The Judicial Standards Commission was established 
by the General Assembly pursuant to a constitutional 
amendment approved by the voters at the general election 
in November 1972. 

Upon recommendation of the Commission, the Su- 
preme Court may censure or remove any judge for wilful 
misconduct in office, wilful and persistent failure to per- 
form his duties, habitual intemperance, conviction of a 
crime involving moral turpitude, or conduct prejudicial 
to the administration of justice that brings the judicial 
office into disrepute. In addition, upon recommendation 
of the Commission, the Supreme Court may remove any 
judge for mental or physical incapacity interfering with 
the performance of his duties, which is, or is likely to 
become, permanent. 

Where a recommendation for censure or removal 
involves a justice of the Supreme Court, the recommenda- 
tion and supporting record is filed with the Court of 
Appeals which has and proceeds under the same author- 
ity for censure or removal of a judge. Such a proceeding 
would be heard by the Chief Judge of the Court of 
Appeals and the six judges senior in service, excluding the 
Court of Appeals judge who by law serves as the Chair- 
man of the Judicial Standards Commission. 

In addition to a recommendation of censure or remov- 
al, the Commission also utilizes a disciplinary measure 
known as a reprimand. The reprimand is a mechanism 
administratively developed for dealing with inquiries 
where the conduct involved does not warrant censure or 
removal, but where some action is justified. Since the 
establishment of the Judicial Standards Commission in 
1973, reprimands have been issued in thirteen instances 
covering 19 inquiries. 



During the 1 July 1983 - 30 June 1984 fiscal year, the 
Judicial Standards Commission met on the following 
dates: 23 September 1983, 2 December 1983, 22 February 
1984, and 15 June 1984. In addition, the Commission 
convened on 22 February 1984 for a hearing involving 
three inquiries. 

A complaint or other information against a judge, 
whether filed with the Commission or initiated by the 
Commission on its own motion, is designated as an 
"Inquiry Concerning a Judge. "Twenty-eight such inquir- 
ies were pending as of 1 July 1983, and 60 inquiries were 
filed during the fiscal year, giving the Commission a total 
workload of 88 inquiries. 

During the fiscal year, the Commission disposed of 80 
inquiries, and 8 inquiries remained pending at the end of 
the fiscal year. 

The determinations of the Commission regarding the 
80 inquiries disposed of during the fiscal year were as 
follows: 

(1) 55 inquiries were determined to involve matters for 
appeal or other legal remedy, evidentiary rulings, 
length of sentences, or other matters not within the 
Commission'sjurisdiction ratherthan questions of 
judicial misconduct; 

(2) five inquiries were determined to involve allega- 
tions of conduct which did not rise to such a level as 
would warrant investigation by the Commission; 

(3) 13 inquiries were determined to warrant no further 
action following completion of 4 preliminary investi- 
gations; 

(4) six inquiries covered in 2 preliminary investigative 
files were determined to warrant the issuance of 
private reprimands; and 



49 



ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS IN 1983-84 

(5) one inquiry was determined to warrant a recom- Of the eight inquiries pending at the end of the fiscal 

mendation of removal following a hearing in the year: 

matter which had been held in the 1982-83 fiscal (1) three inquiries were awaiting initial review by the 

year. Commission; and 

The recommendation of removal filed by the Commis- (2) five inquiries covered in five preliminary investiga- 

sion on 15 August 1983 in Inquiry Concerning a Judge, tive files were awaiting completion of the investiga- 

No. 76 (Charles T. Kivett, Respondent), was adopted by tion or were subject to other action by the Com- 

the Supreme Court on 6 December 1983. In re Kivett, 309 mission. 
N.C. 635, 309 S.E.2d 442 (1983). 



50 



PART III 
COURT RESOURCES 

• Financial 

• Personnel 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 



Under the State Constitution the operating expenses of 
the Judicial Department (all North Carolina courts) 
"other than compensation to process servers and other 
locally paid non-judicial officers" are required to be paid 
from State funds. It is customary legislative practice for 
the General Assembly to include appropriations for the 
operating expenses of all three branches of State govern- 
ment in a single budget bill, for a two-year period ending 
on June 30 of the odd-numbered years. The budget for 
the second year of the biennium is generally modified 
during the even-year legislative session. 

Building facilities for the appellate courts are provided 
by State funds, but, by statute, the county governments 
are required to provide from county funds for adequate 
facilities for the trial courts within each of the 100 
counties. 



Appropriations from the State's General Fund for 
operating expenses for all departments and agencies of 
State government, including the Judicial Department, 
totalled $3,730,497,565 for the 1983-84 fiscal year. 
(Appropriations from the Highway Fund and appropria- 
tions from the General Fund for capital improvements 
and debt servicing are not included in this total.) 

The appropriation from the General Fund for the 
operating expenses of the Judicial Department for 1983- 
84 was $106,182,188. As illustrated in the chart below, 
this General Fund appropriation for the Judicial De- 
partment comprised 2.8% of the General Fund appropri- 
ations for the operating expenses of all State agencies and 
departments. 



TOTAL GENERAL FUND 
APPROPRIATIONS FOR 
OPERATING EXPENSES 

$3,730,497,565 




JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT 
APPROPRIATION 

$106,182,188 



2.8% 



53 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 



Appropriations from the State's general fund for oper- 
ating expenses of the Judicial Department over the past 
five fiscal years are shown in the table below and in the 
graph at the top of the following page. For comparative 
purposes, appropriations from the general fund for oper- 



ating expenses of all State agencies and departments 
(including the Judicial Department) for the last five fiscal 
years are also shown in the table below and in the second 
graph on the following page. 



APPROPRIATIONS FROM GENERAL FUND FOR OPERATING EXPENSES 



Judicial Department 



All State Agencies 



Fiscal Year 

1979-1980 
1980-1981 
1981-1982 
1982-1983 
1983-1984 

AVERAGE ANNUAL 
INCREASE, 1979-1984 





% Increase over 




% Increase over 


ppropriation 


previous year 


Appropriation 


previous year 


71,616,057 


12.45 


2,761,002,481 


12.60 


82,929,174 


15.80 


3,140,949,832 


13.76 


89,631,765 


8.08 


3,339,761,674 


6.33 


93,927,824 


4.79 


3,488,908,246 


4.47 


106,182,188 


13.05 


3,730,497,565 


6.92 



10.83% 



8.82% 



During the past decade, including the five-year period 
covered by the above table, inflation has been a signifi- 
cant factor in the national economy. For example, during 
1 979-80 according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data, the 
average person spent for goods and services more than 
twice the amount required for the same goods and ser- 
vices in 1967. 

The greatest percentage increase in Judicial Depart- 
ment appropriations during the last five years was for the 



1980-81 fiscal year. The increase for that year was due in 
large measure to a 10% pay increase for Judicial Branch 
personnel, with the same pay increase provided for per- 
sonnel of all State government agencies. 

Fiscal year 1982-83 shows the smallest percentage 
increase in Judicial Department appropriations during 
the five-year period. The decline in percentage increase 
that year was consistent with a similar decline for all state 
government agencies. 



54 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 



; 110,000,000 
100,000,000 

90,000,000 
80,000,000 
70,000,000 
60,000,000 
50,000,000 
40,000,000 
30,000,000 
20,000,000 
10,000,000 




General Fund Appropriations for Operating Expenses 
Of the Judicial Department, 1979-80 — 1983-84 




1979-80 



1980-81 



1981-82 



1982-83 



1983-84 



General Fund Appropriations for Operational Expenses 
Of All State Agencies and Departments, 1979-80 — 1983-84 



$3,750,000,000 

3,500,000,000 

3,250,000,000 

3,000,000,000 

2,750,000,000 . 

2,500,000,000 

2,250,000,000 

2,000,000,000 

1,750,000,000 

1,500,000,000 

1,250,000,000 

1,000,000,000 

750,000,000 

500,000,000 

250,000,000 





$3,730,497,565 



$3, 


$2,' 


761,002,481 












































1979-80 



1980-81 



1981-82 



1982-83 



1983-84 



55 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

Expenditures July 1, 1983 — June 30, 1984 

General Fund expenditures for operating expenses of totalled $103,870,583, divided among the major budget 

the Judicial Department during the 1983-84 fiscal year classifications as shown below. 





%of 


Amount 


Total 


1,571,316 


1.5 


2,260,654 


2.2 


12,061,852 


11.6 


19,845,501 


19.1 


30,479,493 


29.3 


7,840,587 


7.6 


12,673,701 


12.2 



Supreme Court 

Court of Appeals 

Superior Courts 

District Courts 

Clerks of Superior Court 

Ju\enile Probation and Aftercare 

Representation for Indigents 

Assigned private counsel $8,301,679 

Guardian ad litem for juveniles $704,603 

Guardian ad litem — volunteer and contract program $167,251 

Public defenders $2,531,928 

Special counsel at mental hospitals $167,336 

Support services (expert witness fees, professional examinations, transcripts) $450,684 

Appellate Defender Services $350,220 
District Attorney Offices 12,583,502 12.1 

Office-District Attorney $12,540,083 

District Attorneys' Conference $43,419 
Administrative Office of the Courts 4,407,264 4.2 

General Administration $2,214,386 

Information Services $1,944,624 

Warehouse & Printing $248,254 
Judicial Standards Commission 93,900 .1 

Pilot Programs 52,813 .1 

Custody Mediation Pilot $34,659 

Outpatient Commitment Pilot $1,587 

Indigency Screening Pilot $16,567 

TOTAL $103,870,583 100.0 



56 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 
Expenditures, July 1, 1983 — June 30, 1984 



DISTRICT COURTS 

19.1% 



CLERKS 
OF 

SUPERIOR 
COURT 

29.3% 



ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE 
OF THE COURTS 

4.2% 




GUARDIAN AD LITEM 0.2% 



SUPERIOR COURTS 

11.6% 



DISTRICT ATTORNEYS 

12.1% 



COURT OF APPEALS 2.2% 
SUPREME COURT 1.5% 

LEGAL REPRESENTATION 
FOR INDIGENTS 12.0% 

JUDICIAL STANDARDS COMMISSION 0.19, 
JUVENILE PROBATION AND AFTERCARE 7.69? 

PILOT PROGRAMS 0.1% 



As the above chart illustrates, most (72%) of Judicial 
Department expenditures goes for operation of the 
State's trial courts: operation of superior courts took 
11.6% of total expenditures; operation of the district 
courts (including magistrates, judges and court reports) 
took 19.1% of the total; the clerks' offices, 29.3 of the 



total; and district attorneys offices, 12. l%of total Judicial 
Department expenditures. 

The total General Fund expenditures of $103,870,583 
for 1983-84 represents a 10.39? increase over expenditures 
of $94,207,2 15 in 1982-83. 



$110,000,000 
100,000,000 
90,000,000 
80,000,000 
70,000,000 
60,000,000 
50,000,000 
40,000,000 
30,000,000 
20,000,000 
10,000,000 




General Fund Expenditures For The Judicial Department 
Fiscal Years 1979-80 — 1983-84 



$105,870,583 



$/ 


1,077, 5( 


il 


































1979-80 



1980-81 



1981-82 



1982-83 



1983-84 



57 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

Department Receipts 
July 1, 1983 — June 30, 1984 



Receipts for the Judicial Department in the 1983-84 
fiscal year totalled S63.603.062. The several sources of 
these receipts are shown in the table below. As in the 
previous years, the major source of receipts is the assess- 
ment of "court costs" in superior and district courts, paid 
by litigants in accordance with the schedule of costs and 
fees set out in G.S. 7 A-304 et seq.\ these payments consti- 



tuted 65.61% of the total receipts during 1983-84. Fines 
and forfeitures made up 31.14% of the total. Receipts in 
the remaining categories — Supreme Court and Court of 
Appeals filing fees, sales of Supreme Court and Court of 
Appeals Reports and payments on indigent representa- 
tion judgements — made up less than three percent of the 
total. 



Source of Receipts 

Supreme Court Fees 
Court of Appeals Fees 
Superior and District 

Court Costs 
Fines and Forfeitures 
Sales of Appellate 

Division Reports 
Payments on Indigent 

Representation 

Judgements 
Ten-Day License 

Revocation Fee 
Total 



Amount 

$ 11,536 
36,586 

41,731,911 
19,804,537 

154,841 



1,241,413 

622,238 
$63,603,062 



%of 
Total 

.02 
.06 

65.61 
31.14 

.24 



1.95 

.98 
100.00 



This total of $63,603,062 is an increase of 15.6% over 
total 1982-83 receipts of $54,998,816. The graph below 



illustrates increases in recent years in total Judicial 
Department receipts. 



$70,000,000 
60,000,000 

50.000.000 
40.000.000 
30,000,000 

20.000.000 

10.000.000 





Judicial Department Receipts, 1979-80 — 1983-84 



$63,603,062 



$49,311,080 



$51,913,089 $53,493,060 $54,998,816 





1979-80 



1980-81 



1981-82 



1982-83 



1983-84 



58 






JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

Distribution of Judicial Department Receipts 
(July 1, 1983-June 30, 1984) 



As required by the State Constitution, fines, penalties 
and forfeitures collected by the courts in criminal cases 
are distributed to the respective counties in which the 
cases are tried. These funds must be used by the counties 
for the support of the public schools. 

A uniform schedule of court costs for civil and criminal 
cases, comprised of a variety of fees, is set by statute for 
cases filed in the superior and district courts. Statutes 
prescribe the distribution of these fees and provide that 
certain fees shall be devoted to specific uses. For exam- 
ple, a facilties fee is included in court costs when costs are 
assessed, and this fee is paid over to the respective county 
or municipality which provided the facility used in the 
case. These fees must be utilized by the counties and 
municipalities to provide and maintain courtrooms and 
related judicial facilities. 

Officer fees (for arrest or service of process) are 
included, where applicable, in the costs of each case filed 
in the trial courts. If a municipal officer performed these 
services in a case, the fee is paid over to the respective 
municipality. Otherwise, all officer fees are paid to the 
respective counties in which the cases are filed. 

A jail fee is included in the costs of each case where 
applicable; and these fees are distributed to the respective 



Remitted to State Treasurer 

Supreme Court Fees 

Court of Appeals Fees 

Sales of Appellate Division Report's 

Law Enforcement Officers Benefit and 

Retirement Fund Fees 
Other Superior and District Court Fees 

Total to State Treasurer 

Distributed to Counties 

Fines and Forfeitures 
Judicial Facilities Fees 
Officer Fees 
Jail Fees 

Total to Counties 

Distributed to Municipalities 

Judicial Facilities Fees 
Officer Fees 
Jail Fees 

Total to Municipalities 

Retained by Judicial Department 

Payments on Indigent Representation 

Judgements 

Ten-day license Revocation Fees 

Total retained by Judicial Department 
GRAND TOTAL 



county or municipality whose facilties were used. Most 
jail facilties in the State are provided by the counties. 

A fee for the Law Enforcement Officers Benefit and 
Retirement Fund is included as a part of court costs when 
costs are assessed in a criminal case. As required by 
statute, the Judicial Department remits these fees to the 
State Treasurer, for deposit in the Law Enforcement 
Officers Benefit and Retirement Fund. 

Except as indicated, all superior and district court costs 
collected by the Judicial Department are paid into the 
State's General Fund, as are appellate court fees and 
proceeds from the sales of appellate division reports. 

When private counsel or a public defender is assigned 
to represent an indigent defendant in a criminal case the 
trial judge sets the money value for the services rendered. 
If the defendant is convicted, a judgment lien is entered 
against him for such amount. Collections on these judg- 
ments are paid into and retained by the department to 
defray the costs of legal representation of indigents. The 
Ten-Day License Revocation Fee is paid into and re- 
tained by the department to defray the costs of imple- 
menting the 1983 Safe Roads Act. 





07- of 




%of 


Amount 


Total 


i 11,536 


.02 


36,586 


.06 


154,841 


.24 


2,326,563 


3.66 


28,384,258 


44.63 


30,913,784 


48.61 


19,804,537 


31.14 


5,889,717 


9.26 


2,972,783 


4.67 


516,023 


.81 


29,183,060 


45.88 


290,163 


.46 


1,345,710 


2.11 


6,694 


.01 


1,642,567 


2.58 



1,241,413 


1.95 


622,238 


.98 


1,863,651 


2.93 


$63,603,062 


100.00 



59 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

Amounts of Fees, Fines and Forfeitures Collected by the Courts and 

Distributed to Counties and Municipalities* 

July 1, 1983 — June 30, 1984 



Distributed to Counties 



Distributed to Municipalities 





Facility 


Officer 


Jail 


Fines and 


Facility 


Officer 


Jail 






Fees 


Fees 


Fees 


Forfeitures 


Fees 


Fees 


Fees 


Total 


Alamance 


S 92,777 


$ 50,068 


$ 15,189 


$ 327,476 


$ -0- 


$ 18,057 


$ -0- 


$ 503,566 


Alexander 


14,928 


9,216 


4,085 


77,044 


-0- 


352 


-0- 


105,625 


Alleghany 


7,429 


3,374 


1,735 


21,711 


-0- 


365 


-0- 


34,614 


Anson 


26,213 


14,663 


1,809 


65,349 


-0- 


1,030 


-0- 


109,064 


Ashe 


16,012 


13,179 


1,785 


65,455 


-0- 


144 


-0- 


96,575 


Avery 


11,847 


9,044 


1,219 


60,501 


-0- 


88 


-0- 


82,699 


Beaufort 


44,464 


35,039 


5,746 


130,902 


155 


6,510 


-0- 


222,816 


Bertie 


23,408 


20,124 


2,874 


70,872 


-0- 


1,104 


-0- 


118,381 


Bladen 


36,117 


31,368 


1,096 


121,211 


1,320 


1,100 


-0- 


192,212 


Brunswick 


32,467 


17,574 


4,055 


189,247 


2,490 


1,928 


-0- 


247,761 


Buncombe 


167,422 


95,906 


7,167 


593,888 


-0- 


45,708 


-0- 


910,091 


Burke 


69,406 


36,940 


2,562 


213,665 


-0- 


7,574 


-0- 


330,147 


Cabarrus 


98,696 


73,478 


10,958 


315,385 


-0- 


8,376 


-0- 


506,893 


Caldwell 


60,623 


24,747 


3,791 


162,509 


-0- 


9,024 


-0- 


260,694 


Camden 


6,526 


5,148 


1,209 


27,775 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


40,658 


Carteret 


56,373 


29,244 


2,378 


216,066 


-0- 


11,301 


-0- 


315,362 


Caswell 


17,397 


15,574 


1,796 


75,763 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


110,530 


Catawba 


44,741 


31,054 


5,560 


260,824 


54,665 


25,872 


1,419 


424,135 


Chatham 


22,284 


21,732 


1,168 


79,509 


7,151 


1,165 


175 


133,184 


Cherokee 


13,368 


9,868 


2,385 


58,337 


-0- 


1,399 


110 


85,467 


Chowan 


14,545 


8,522 


807 


59,418 


-0- 


3,354 


-0- 


86,646 


Clay 


4,017 


2,716 


520 


18,644 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


25,897 


Cleveland 


64,731 


26,439 


5,037 


192,522 


-0- 


9,641 


-0- 


298,370 


Columbus 


49,840 


44,431 


5,222 


168,785 


2,775 


4,513 


80 


275,645 


Craven 


82,884 


30,315 


6,428 


273,431 


-0- 


19,650 


-0- 


412,708 


Cumberland 


258,549 


95,895 


29,035 


1,048,991 


-0- 


49,287 


-0- 


1,481,757 


Currituck 


14,962 


12,001 


1,380 


75,135 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


103,478 


Dare 


37,051 


20,930 


2,926 


255,494 


-0- 


2,772 


-0- 


324,173 


Davidson 


81,081 


64,322 


6,484 


294,403 


11,426 


6,352 


-0- 


464,068 


Davie 


21,610 


15,234 


776 


61,493 


-0- 


1,030 


-0- 


100,143 


Duplin 


36,127 


19,771 


2,933 


153,782 


-0- 


696 


405 


213,714 


Durham 


228,076 


57,358 


3,187 


409,039 


-0- 


90,293 


-0- 


787,952 


Edgecombe 


36,651 


46,419 


7,512 


113,149 


26,836 


11,904 


395 


242,866 


Forsyth 


282,895 


36,741 


16,219 


756,376 


3,361 


122,037 


-0- 


1,217,629 


Franklin 


23,237 


13,754 


6,160 


93,386 


-0- 


458 


70 


137,155 


Gaston 


125,522 


85,020 


14,532 


435,468 


-0- 


13,906 


-0- 


674,448 


Gates 


8,290 


5,771 


665 


40,999 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


55,725 


Graham 


4,607 


3,616 


1,185 


44,709 


-0- 


48 


-0- 


54,165 


Granville 


34,511 


16,128 


3,747 


124,912 


-0- 


4,975 


185 


184,458 


Greene 


12,194 


9,444 


1,241 


39,844 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


62,723 


Guilford 


386,899 


64,186 


18,342 


898,705 


-0- 


157,690 


-0- 


1,525,822 


Halifax 


59,894 


43,847 


10,200 


217,825 


7,788 


15,861 


349 


355,764 


Harnett 


39,903 


28,673 


6,916 


140,046 


8,299 


3,572 


335 


227,744 


Haywood 


40,373 


29,598 


3,040 


179,819 


395 


2,344 


10 


255,579 


Henderson 


50,754 


28,252 


7,293 


198,419 


500 


4,278 


-0- 


289,496 


Hertford 


28,656 


19,558 


4,055 


82,116 


-0- 


1,626 


-0- 


136,010 


Hoke 


22,840 


14,256 


3,499 


98,289 


-0- 


1,568 


-0- 


140,451 


Hyde 


7,722 


5,999 


780 


34,159 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


48,660 


Iredell 


57,697 


30,157 


4,150 


249,498 


12,386 


10,671 


321 


364,881 


Jackson 


18,290 


13,384 


1,994 


63,667 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


97,336 



•Facility and jail fees are distributed to the respective counties and municipalities which furnished the facilities. If the officer who 
made the arrest or served the process was employed by a municipality, the officer fee is distributed to the municipality; otherwise 
all officer fees are distributed to the respective counties. By provision of the State Constitution, fines and forfeitures collected by 
the courts within a county are distributed to that county for support of the public schools. 



60 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

Amounts of Fees, Fines and Forfeitures Collected by the Courts and 

Distributed to Counties and Municipalities* 

July 1, 1983 — June 30, 1984 



Distributed to Counties 



Distributed to Municipalities 





Facility 


Officer 


Jail 


Fines and 


Facility 


Officer 


Jail 






Fees 


Fees 


Fees 


Forfeitures 


Fees 


Fees 


Fees 


Total 


Johnston 


59,603 


45,021 


12,796 


280,599 


11,405 


5,410 


270 


415,104 


Jones 


8,881 


5,990 


665 


29,088 


-0- 


456 


-0- 


45,080 


Lee 


51,551 


27,498 


13,032 


165,659 


-0- 


9,932 


-0- 


267,672 


Lenoir 


66,835 


27,201 


6,537 


211,182 


378 


11,976 


-0- 


324,108 


Lincoln 


30,652 


19,628 


642 


78,175 


-0- 


1,780 


-0- 


130,877 


Macon 


$ 17,990 


13,908 


1,309 


74,859 


-0- 


328 


-0- 


108,395 


Madison 


9,606 


7,404 


15 


30,321 


-0- 


40 


-0- 


47,386 


Martin 


226,983 


19,845 


2,258 


74,964 


-0- 


2,144 


35 


126,229 


McDowell 


31,356 


20,784 


1,609 


123,671 


-0- 


1,764 


-0- 


179,184 


Mecklenburg 


527,284 


207,575 


5 


1,321,971 


-0- 


168,984 


-0- 


2,225,819 


Mitchell 


7,374 


5,534 


785 


34,833 


-0- 


452 


-0- 


48,978 


Montgomery 


33,300 


29,186 


2,000 


76,139 


-0- 


1,520 


-0- 


142,145 


Moore 


56,446 


38,773 


2,684 


218,382 


3,902 


7,652 


105 


327,944 


Nash 


49,174 


55,017 


11,505 


200,646 


37,498 


15,987 


956 


370,782 


New Hanover 


124,975 


40,960 


11,377 


447,531 


-0- 


26,643 


5 


651,491 


Northampton 


25,847 


21,805 


3,305 


112,907 


-0- 


1,290 


-0- 


165,154 


Onslow 


105,889 


56,118 


21,484 


378,654 


-0- 


31,479 


-0- 


593,623 


Orange 


40,017 


29,524 


3,209 


203,843 


24,747 


15,718 


235 


317,292 


Pamlico 


7,014 


5,666 


382 


19,936 


-0- 


4 


-0- 


33,002 


Pasquotank 


26,723 


12,258 


4,399 


123,464 


-0- 


8,491 


-0- 


175,336 


Pender 


23,972 


15,992 


3,226 


104,652 


-0- 


704 


-0- 


148,545 


Perquimans 


9,435 


6,301 


735 


30,453 


-0- 


1,139 


-0- 


48,063 


Person 


25,458 


18,808 


1,901 


85,408 


-0- 


2,581 


-0- 


134,156 


Pitt 


89,976 


32,466 


5,777 


272,949 


6,903 


27,420 


530 


436,021 


Polk 


11,836 


9,095 


1,723 


89,103 


-0- 


456 


-0- 


112,213 


Randolph 


69,871 


58,755 


2,825 


210,947 


2,155 


8,636 


-0- 


353,189 


Richmond 


36,911 


23,820 


3,701 


121,105 


-0- 


2,848 


-0- 


188,385 


Robeson 


96,172 


62,120 


13,894 


476,886 


30,669 


21,831 


449 


702,020 


Rockingham 


61,709 


37,690 


8,341 


285,199 


21,701 


19,498 


10 


434,148 


Rowan 


85,302 


52,898 


11,881 


276,552 


-0- 


20,121 


-0- 


446,755 


Rutherford 


45,590 


24,622 


6,659 


159,004 


-0- 


8,282 


-0- 


244,157 


Sampson 


55,902 


42,100 


7,184 


169,502 


-0- 


1,612 


-0- 


276,301 


Scotland 


40,180 


29,167 


4,854 


140,346 


-0- 


5,316 


-0- 


219,862 


Stanly 


42,393 


14,601 


3,434 


176,554 


-0- 


5,488 


-0- 


242,471 


Stokes 


22,268 


12,989 


3,726 


70,873 


-0- 


680 


-0- 


110,536 


Surry 


56,238 


46,409 


3,344 


168,240 


1,254 


5,596 


85 


281,167 


Swain 


7,288 


4,880 


5,047 


29,802 


-0- 


472 


-0- 


47,489 


Transylvania 


17,826 


13,988 


5,278 


80,959 


-0- 


2,414 


-0- 


120,465 


Tyrrell 


4,657 


3,071 


520 


14,306 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


22,554 


Union 


52,765 


37,068 


6,848 


327,481 


-0- 


7,000 


-0- 


431,162 


Vance 


42,640 


21,414 


4,730 


139,829 


-0- 


5,356 


-0- 


213,969 


Wake 


391,811 


88,546 


27,965 


1,210,715 


7,570 


164,928 


45 


1,891,580 


Warren 


17,008 


13,304 


1,036 


54,228 


-0- 


474 


-0- 


86,050 


Washington 


11,163 


8,926 


1,207 


31,050 


-0- 


778 


-0- 


53,124 


Watauga 


28,242 


20,324 


4,611 


121,808 


-0- 


2,566 


-0- 


177,551 


Wayne 


83,008 


44,742 


3,576 


268,229 


2,435 


17,972 


115 


420,077 


Wilkes 


55,662 


30,840 


5,453 


224,368 


-0- 


1,466 


-0- 


317,789 


Wilson 


62,018 


39,921 


5,038 


135,293 


-0- 


12,248 


-0- 


254,518 


Yadkin 


28,586 


21,419 


5,177 


144,679 


-0- 


506 


-0- 


200,367 


Yancey 


9,336 


6,735 


1,505 


21,183 


-0- 


648 


-0- 


39,407 


State Totals 


5,889,717 


2,972,783 


516,023 


19,804,537 


290,163 


1,345,710 


6,694 


30,825,626 



♦Facility and jail fees are distributed to the respective counties and muncipalities which furnished the facilities. If the officer who 
made the arrest or served the process was employed by a municipality, the officer fee is distributed to the municipality; otherwise 
all officer fees are distributed to the respective counties. By provision of the State Constitution, fines and forfeitures collected by 
the courts within a county are distributed to that county for support of the public schools. 

61 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

Cost and Case Data on Representation of Indigents 
July 1, 1983 — June 30, 1984 



The State provides legal counsel for indigent persons in 
a variety of actions and proceedings, as specified in the 
North Carolina General Statutes, Sections 7 A-450 et seq. 
These include criminal proceedings, judicial hospitaliza- 
tion proceedings, juvenile proceedings which may result 
in commitment to an institution or transfer to superior 
court for trial as an adult. Legal representation for indi- 
gents may be by assignment of private counsel, by 
assignment of special public counsel (involving mental 
hospital commitments), or by assignment of a public 
defender. 

Seven of North Carolina's judicial districts have an 
office of public defender: Districts 3, 12, 15B, 18, 26, 27A, 
and 28. The other 27 districts utilize only assignments of 
private counsel. Private counsel may also be assigned in 
the seven districts which have a public defender in the 
event of a conflict of interests involving the public defend- 
er's office and the indigent and in the event of unusual 
circumstances when, in the opinion of the court, the 
proper administration of justice requires the assignment 
of private counsel rather than the public defender in those 
cases. 

The Appellate Defender Office began operation as a 
State-funded program on October 1, 1981. (Prior to 
October 1, 1981, appellate defender services were funded 
by a one-year federal grant.) Pursuant to assignments 
made by trial court judges, it is the responsibility of the 
Appellate Defender and his staff to provide criminal 
defense appellate services to indigent persons who are 
appealing their convictions to either the Supreme Court 
or the Court of Appeals. The Appellate Defender is under 
the general supervision of the Chief Justice. The Chief 



Justice may, consistent with the resources available to the 
Appellate Defender and to insure quality criminal defense 
services, authorize certain appeals to be assigned to a 
local public defender office or to private assigned counsel 
instead of to the Appellate Defender. The case and cost 
data reported below reflect the activity of this office in 
both the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals for the 
fiscal year ending June 30, 1984. 

In addition, the State provides a full-time special coun- 
sel at each of the State's four mental hospitals, to repre- 
sent patients in commitment or recommitment hearings 
before a district court judge. Under North Carolina law, 
each patient committed to a mental hospital is entitled to 
a judicial hearing (before a district court judge) within 90 
days after the initial commitment, a further hearing 
within 180 days after the initial commitment, and there- 
after a hearing once each year during the continuance of 
an involuntary commitment. 

Finally, the State provides a guardian ad litem for 
children alleged to be neglected in juvenile petitions 
unless the court finds that the child is not in need of and 
cannot benefit from such representation. 

The cost of all programs of indigent representation, 
rounded to the nearest dollar, was $12,673,701 in the 
1983-84 fiscal year, compared to $12,284,1 19 in the 1982- 
83 fiscal year, an increase of 3.2%. The total amount 
expended for these activities was 12.2% of total Judicial 
Department expenditures in the 1983-84 fiscal year. 

Following is a summary of case and cost data for 
representation of indigents for the fiscal year, July 1, 1983 
through June 30, 1984. 



62 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

Cost and Case Data on Representation of Indigents 
July 1, 1983-June 30, 1984 



Assigned Private Counsel 

Capital offense cases 
Adult cases (other than capital) 
Juvenile cases 
Totals 

Guardian ad litem for juveniles 

Guardian ad //rem-volunteer and 
contract program 

Public Defender Offices 

District 3* 
District 12 
District 15B 
District 18 
District 26 
District 27A 
District 28 
Totals 

Appellate Defender Office 

Special Counsel at mental hospitals 

Transcripts, records and briefs 

Professional examinations 

Expert witness fees 

GRAND TOTAL 



Number 
of Cases 

366 

35,120 

5,365 

40,851 

4,977 



Total 
Cost 

782,633 
6,992,648 

526,398 
8,301,679 

704,603 



167,251 



Average 
Per Case 



$2,138 

199 

98 

$ 203 

142 



1,156 


$ 


242,466 


$ 210 


2,798 




476,501 


170 


354 




145,932 


412 


2,981 




549,084 


184 


6,362 




609,894 


96 


1,769 




286,374 


162 


1,409 




221,677 


157 


16,829 


$ 


2,531,928 


$ 150 


207 


$ 


350,220 


$1,692 




$ 


167,336 

367,439 

42,894 

40,351 






$12,673,701 





'For only Pitt and Carteret counties in District 3. 



63 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 



Special Counsel at Mental Hospitals 



The total cost of providing special counsel at each of 
the State's four mental hospitals, to represent patients 
in commitment or recommitment hearings, was 
SI 67.336 for the 1983-84 fiscal year. There were a total 
of 9.448 hearings held during the year, for an average 
cost per hearing of $17.71 for the special counsel 
service. 



The following table presents data on the hearings 
held at each of the mental hospitals in 1983-84. The 
total number of hearings in 1983-84 was 1,447 less than 
the number held in 1982-83, for a 13.3% decrease in 
number of hearings held during the year. 



Initial Hearings resulting in: 

Commitment to hospital 
Commitment to outpatient clinic 
Discharge 
Totals 

First Rehearings resulting in: 

Commitment to hospital 
Commitment to outpatient clinic 
Discharge 
Totals 

Second or Subsequent Rehearings resulting in: 

Commitment to hospital 
Commitment to outpatient clinic 
Discharge 
Totals 

Modification of Prior Order Hearings resulting in: 

Commitment to hospital 
Commitment to outpatient clinic 
Discharge 
Totals 

Total Hearings or Rehearings resulting in: 

Commitment to hospital 
Commitment to outpatient clinic 
Discharge 
Grand Totals 







Dorothea 


John 




oughton 


Cherry 


Dix 


Umstead 


Totals 


802 


1,060 


653 


1,167 


3,682 


271 


225 


11 


81 


588 


909 


492 


427 


604 


2,432 


1,982 


1,777 


1,091 


1,852 


6,702 


107 


253 


160 


343 


863 


32 


4 


4 


9 


49 


93 


138 


34 


158 


423 


232 


395 


198 


510 


1,335 


161 


310 


280 


485 


1,236 


4 





1 


5 


10 


25 


8 


17 


56 


106 


190 


318 


298 


546 


1,352 


2 


13 





4 


19 


20 


3 


12 





35 


2 


3 








5 


24 


19 


12 


4 


59 


1,072 


1,636 


1,093 


1,999 


5,800 


327 


232 


28 


95 


682 


1,029 


641 


478 


818 


2,966 


2,428 


2,509 


1,599 


2,912 


9,448 



64 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

Assigned Counsel and Guardian Ad Litem 

Number of Cases and Expenditures 

Fiscal Year 1983-84 



Assigned Counsel 



Guardian Ad Litem 



Number of Cases 



District 1 



Camden 


22 


Chowan 


82 


Currituck 


52 


Dare 


109 


Gates 


27 


Pasquotank 


251 


Perquimans 


47 


District Totals 


590 


District 2 




Beaufort 


275 


Hyde 


64 


Martin 


157 


Tyrrell 


39 


Washington 


94 


District Totals 


629 


District 3 




Carteret 


44 


Craven 


534 


Pamlico 


24 


Pitt 


146 


District Totals 


748 


District 4 




Duplin 


231 


Jones 


40 


Onslow 


537 


Sampson 


290 


District Totals 


1,098 


District 5 




New Hanover 


767 


Pender 


91 


District Totals 


858 


District 6 




Bertie 


157 


Halifax 


509 


Hertford 


233 


Northampton 


151 


District Totals 


1,050 


District 7 





Edgecombe 

Nash 

Wilson 

District Totals 



580 
484 
699 

1,763 



Expenditures 

$5,877 
15,712 
12,447 
33,453 

9,369 
51,448 

7,330 

135,635 



63,709 
17,303 
43,871 
12,503 
18,189 

155,576 



10,962 
130,345 

3,485 
76,840 

221,631 



71,842 

9,770 

163,487 

91,736 

336,835 



244,477 
19,053 

263,530 



41,229 

111,847 

50,346 

50,491 

253,914 



119,451 
108,647 
149,844 

377,942 



Number of Cases 

6 

8 
13 
10 

! 
23 
_8 

m 



36 
8 

14 

18 

76 



28 

67 

3 

30 

128 



24 

1 

153 

65 

243 



52 
12 

64 



34 
43 
73 
36 

186 



23 
30 
2_! 

74 



Expenditures 

$832 
821 
2,301 
1,640 
40 
2,125 
1,103 



8,861 



3,277 
680 
775 

1,125 
5,857 



2,431 

7,555 

575 

5,065 

15,625 



2,775 

150 

13,236 

6,550 

22,711 



9,336 

1,542 

10,878 



2,525 
4,950 
4,935 

2,972 

15,382 



4,175 
4,500 
2,615 

11,290 



65 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

Assigned Counsel and Guardian Ad Litem 

Number of Cases and Expenditures 

Fiscal Year 1983-84 



Assigned Counsel 



Guardian Ad Litem 



District 8 




Number of Cases 


Expenditures 


Greene 
Lenoir 
Wayne 




103 
739 
958 


$ 19,206 
128,348 
162,700 


District 


Totals 


i.HOO 


310,254 


District 9 








Franklin 

Granville 

Person 

Vance 

Warren 




237 
353 
212 
490 

117 


41,655 
61,089 

43,872 

104,727 

23,586 


District 


Totals 


1,409 


274,930 


District 10 








Wake 




2,682 


541,178 


District 11 








Harnett 

Johnston 

Lee 




347 
651 
345 


54,475 
78,202 
45,310 


District 


Totals 


1,343 


177,987 


District 12 








Cumberlan 
Hoke 


d 


136 

8 


51,186 

4,388 


District 


Totals 


144 


55,574 


District 13 








Bladen 

Brunswick 

Columbus 




357 
310 
541 


66,555 

74,776 
111,952 


District 


Totals 


1,208 


253,283 


District 14 








Durham 




2,712 


460,292 


District 15 A 






Alamance 




795 


200,558 


District 15B 






Chatham 
Orange 




56 
271 


11,954 
58,451 


District 


Totals 


327 


70,405 


District 16 








Robeson 
Scotland 




1,134 
465 


208,963 

74,893 


District 


Totals 


1,599 


283,855 
66 



of Cases 


Expenditures 


5 


$ 734 


45 


15,976 


39 


6,947 


89 


23,657 


7 


1,425 


16 


2,716 


30 


5,265 


12 


2,300 


7 


1,573 


72 


13,279 



240 



61 
26 
21 

108 



14 
202 



14 
18 

57 

89 



201 



40 



25 
68 
93 



180 
36 

216 



54,167 



8,985 
4,265 
2,433 

15,683 



11,135 
1,611 

12,746 



2,100 
1,905 
8,035 

12,040 



40,208 
6,307 



5,050 
9,265 

14,315 



8,981 
3,275 

12,256 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

Assigned Counsel and Guardian Ad Litem 

Number of Cases and Expenditures 

Fiscal Year 1983-84 



Assigned Counsel 



Guardian Ad Litem 



Number of Cases 



District 17 A 



Caswell 
Rockingham 


84 
784 


District Totals 


868 


District 17 B 




Stokes 
Surry 


153 

578 


District Totals 


731 


District 18 




Guilford 


376 


District 19 A 




Cabarrus 
Rowan 


705 
1,057 


District Totals 


1,762 


District 19 B 




Montgomery 
Randolph 


209 

523 


District Totals 


732 


District 20 




Anson 

Moore 

Richmond 

Stanly 

Union 


361 

588 
713 

372 
541 


District Totals 


2,575 


District 21 




Forsyth 


3,049 


District 22 




Alexander 
Davidson 
Davie 
Iredell 


174 
704 
113 
650 


District Totals 


1,641 


District 23 





Alleghany 
Ashe 
Wilkes 
Yadkin 

District Totals 



48 
120 
441 
144 

753 



Expenditures 

$ 19,353 
124,935 

144,288 



31,501 
149,848 

181,349 



166,438 



151,855 
161,865 

313,720 



59,981 
86,015 

145,996 



50,584 
83,897 
106,562 
67,966 
90,778 

399,787 



448,762 



29,497 
155,379 

24,882 
30,540 

340,297 



4,925 
14,435 

47,562 
16,828 

83,750 



Number of Cases 

9 
14 

33 



3 

54 

57 



260 

62 
88 

150 



14 

78 

92 



10 
73 
57 
46 
175 

361 



217 

21 
115 

28 
63 

227 



3 

24 
57 
24 

108 



Expenditures 

$ 1,670 
1,450 



3,120 



400 
4,150 

4,550 



37,509 



8,619 
12,510 

21,129 



2,485 
8,719 

11,204 



725 

6,225 

4,980 

4,678 

17,384 

33,992 



26,364 

2,823 

16,492 

3,375 

8,915 

31,605 



450 
1,815 
3,700 
1,900 

7,865 



67 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FINANCES 

Assigned Counsel and Guardian Ad Litem 

Number of Cases and Expenditures 

Fiscal Year 1982-83 



Assigned Counsel 



Guardian Ad Litem 



District 24 




Number of Cases 


Expenditures 


Number of Cases 


Expenditures 


Avery 

Madison 

Mitchell 

Watauga 

Yancey 




120 
78 
49 

190 
29 


29,987 
20,218 

9,472 
54,011 

5,191 


19 

23 

16 

9 

9 


4,001 
4,305 
1,370 
2,600 
2,341 


District 


Totals 


466 


118,879 


76 


14,617 


District 25 












Burke 

Caldwell 

Catawba 




546 
599 

817 


$ 107,044 
111,127 

178,577 


57 
37 
65 


$ 11,125 
5,890 
9,535 


District 


Totals 


1,962 


396,749 


159 


26,550 



District 26 
Mecklenburg 

District 27 A 
Gaston 



District 27 B 

Cleveland 
Lincoln 

District Totals 

District 28 



Buncombe 



2,095 



119 



466 
213 

679 



344 



578,863 



26,528 



97,781 
48,946 

146,727 



56,446 



417 

87 

50 
18 

68 
180 



121,103 
9,810 



6,162 
1,975 

8,137 



12,349 



District 29 



Henderson 


367 


72,454 


55 


McDowell 


247 


42,915 


29 


Polk 


82 


13,931 


2 


Rutherford 


292 


77,342 


39 


Transylvania 


91 


16,248 


22 


District Totals 


1,079 


222,889 


147 


District 30 








Cherokee 


107 


25,791 


24 


Clay 


17 


4,899 


4 


Graham 


30 


9,104 


6 


Haywood 


224 


60,899 


35 


Jackson 


81 


12,856 


42 


Macon 


338 


33,249 


12 


Swain 


68 


10,035 


J25 


District Totals 


865 


156,832 


148 


STATE TOTALS 


40,851 


$8,301,678 


4,977 



7,375 
9,022 
300 
4,150 
3,857 

24,704 



3,294 
999 

532 
2,291 
2,342 
2,537 
2,740 

14,735 
$704,603 



68 



JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL 
(Positions and salaries authorized as of June 30, 1984) 

Positions 

Authorized Salary Ranges 

SUPREME COURT 

7 Justices $59,868-67,008 

23 Staff personnel (Clerk's and Reporter's offices, 

law clerks, library staff) $12,612-43,836 

7 Secretarial personnel $17, 136-$ 17,928 

COURT OF APPEALS 

12 Judges $56,676-$57,948 

29 Staff personnel (Clerk's office, prehearing staff, 

Judicial Standards Commission staff, law clerks) $12,612-$36,744 

18 Secretarial personnel $14,964-$ 17, 136 

SUPERIOR COURT 

68 Judges $50,328-$5 1,984 

74 Staff personnel $15,660-$3 1,380 

44 Secretarial personnel $ 9,732-$17,928 

DISTRICT COURT 

142 Judges $40,752-$42,372 

614 Magistrates $10,440-$ 16, 152 

33 Staff personnel $1 1,052-516,392 

7 Secretarial personnel $ 9,732-$16,392 

DISTRICT ATTORNEYS 

35 District Attorneys $46,812 

264 Staff personnel $12,612-545,000 

85 Secretarial personnel $ 9,732-516,392 

CLERKS OF SUPERIOR COURT 

100 Clerks of Superior Court $21,024-541,388 

1,452 Staff personnel $ 8,916-$27,216 

7 Secretarial personnel $1 1,556-514,340 

INDIGENT REPRESENTATION 

7 Public Defenders 546,812 

60 Staff personnel 513,164-542,000 

20 Secretarial personnel 5 9,732-516,392 

4 Special counsel at mental hospitals 518,900-523,616 

4 Secretarial personnel 5 9,732-514,340 

JUVENILE PROBATION AND AFTERCARE 

272 Court counselors 513,164-529,928 

52 Secretarial personnel $ 9,732-514,340 

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS 

1 Administrative Officer of the Courts $53,496 

1 Assistant Director $44,820 

117 Staff personnel $10,824-$48,180 



69 



PART IV 
TRIAL COURTS CASEFLOW DATA 

• Superior Court Division 

• District Court Division 



TRIAL COURTS CASE DATA 



This part of the Annual Report presents pertinent data 
on a district-by-district and county-by-county basis. For 
ease of reference, this part is divided into a superior court 
division section and a district court division section. 

The data within the two sections generally parallel each 
other in terms of organization, with each section subdi- 
vided into civil and criminal case categories. With some 
exceptions, there are three basic data tables for each case 
category: a caseload inventory (filings, dispositions and 
pending) table; a table on the manner of dispositions; and a 
table on ages of cases disposed of during the year and ages 
of cases pending at the end of the year. Pending and age 
data are not provided for district court motor vehicle crim- 
inal cases, for civil cases (small claims) referred to magis- 
trates, and for juvenile cases, inasmuch as these categories 
of cases are not reported by case file number. 

The caseload inventory tables provide a statistical pic- 
ture of caseflow during the 1 983-84 year. Items recorded in 
this table include the number of cases pending at the begin- 
ning of the year, the number of new cases filed, the number 
of cases disposed of during the year, and the number of 
cases left pending at the end of the year. The caseload 
inventory also shows the total caseload (the number pend- 
ing at the beginning of the year plus the number filed during 
the year) and the percentage of the caseload which was 
disposed of during the year. 

The aging tables show the ages of the cases pending on 
June 30, 1984 as well as the ages of the cases disposed of 
during 1983-84. These tables also show both mean (aver- 
age) and median ages for each set of cases — those pending 
at the end of the year and those that were disposed of during 
the year. The median age of a group of cases is, by defini- 
tion, the age of a hypothetical case which is older than 50% 
of the total set of cases and younger than the other 50%. 

Unlike the median, the mean age can be substantially 
raised (or lowered) if even a small number of very old (or 
very young) cases are included. For example, if only a 
single two-year old case was included among ten cases aged 
three months, the median age would be 90 days and the 
mean (average) age would be 148.2 days. A substantial 
difference between the median and average ages, therefore, 
indicates the presence of a number of rather long-pending, 
or short-pending, cases. 



Separate summary tables at the end of Part IV show the 
comparative rankings, for the 1983-84 year, in terms of 
percentage of disposition of caseloads for the 34 judicial 
districts and the 100 counties. 

The case statistics in Part IV have been calculated from 
filing and disposition case data submitted to the Adminis- 
trative Office of the Courts by the 100 clerks of superior 
court across the State. The present case reporting system is 
primarily a manual one: weekly reports from each clerk's 
office are mailed to Raleigh, where they are computer- 
coded, entered and processed. Pending case information is 
computer-calculated from the filing and disposition data. 
The accuracy of the pending case figures is, of course, 
dependent upon timely and accurate filing and disposition 
data. 

Periodic comparisons by clerk personnel of their actual 
pending case files against AOC's computer-produced pend- 
ing case lists, followed by indicated corrections, is necessary 
to maintain completely accurate data in the AOC computer 
file. Yet, staff resource in the clerks' offices is not sufficient 
to make such physical inventory checks as frequently and 
as completely as would be necessary to maintain full accu- 
racy in AOC's computer files. Thus, it is recognized that 
some of the figures published in the following tables have 
errors of some degree. 

Another accuracy-related problem inherent in a manual 
reporting system is the lack of absolute consistency in the 
published year-end and year-beginning pending figures. 
The number of cases pending at the end of a reporting year 
should ideally be identical with the number of published 
pending cases at the beginning of the next reporting year. In 
reality, this is rarely the case. Experience has shown that 
inevitably some filings and dispositions which occurred in 
the preceding year do not get reported until the subsequent 
year. The later-reported data is regarded as being more 
complete reporting and is used, thereby producing some 
differences between the prior year's end-pending figures 
and the current year's beginning-pending figures. 

Notwithstanding the indicated limitations in the data 
reporting and data-processing system, it is believed that the 
published figures are sufficiently adequate to fully justify 
their use. In any event, the published figures are the best 
and most accurate data currently available. 



73 



PART IV, Section 1 



Superior Court Division 
Caseflow Data 



The Superior Court Division 



This section contains data tables and accompanying 
charts depicting the caseflow during the 1983-84 year of 
cases pending, filed, and disposed of in the State's super- 
ior courts; that is, cases before superior court judges. 
Data is also presented on cases pending, filed and dis- 
posed of before the lOOclerks of superior court, who have 
original jurisdiction over estate cases and special pro- 
ceedings. 

There are, for statistical reporting purposes, three cate- 
gories of cases filed in the superior courts: civil cases, 
felony cases which are within the original jurisdiction of 
the superior courts, and misdemeanor appeals from the 
district courts to superior courts, for trial de novo. 

During 1983-84, as the bar graph on the following page 
illustrates, felony cases contributed the greatest propor- 
tion of all case filings (52.3%), misdemeanor appeals the 
second greatest proportion of all case filings (32.2%), with 
civil cases amounting to 15.5% of total case filings in the 
superior courts. There were decreases in case filings dur- 
ing 1983-84 in all three case categories, compared with 
filings during the previous year. While such across-the- 
board decreases in superior court case filings have not 
occurred in several years, it seems unlikely that this is 
indicative of any future trend over a period of years. The 
long-range future trend seems likely to reflect an increase 
in case filings generally notwithstanding an occasional 
year-to-year decrease in case filings. 

As in previous years, a typical superior court civil case 
takes considerably longer to dispose of than the typical 
criminal case. Data presented in the following bar graphs, 
as well as in the following tables covering the ages of 
superior court cases, clearly supports the longer disposi- 
tion period conclusion regarding civil cases. The median 
age of superior court civil cases pending on July 30, 1984 
was 271 days. Similar data, covering pending cases in the 
felony and misdemeanor case categories, shows median 
ages of 80 and 78 days, respectively. 

For superior court civil case dispositions in 1983-84, 
the median case age at disposition was 313 days, com- 
pared to 80 days for felony cases at disposition and 65 
days for misdemeanor cases at disposition. 

Comparing this median-age data with the same infor- 
mation for 1982-83, it is seen that the median age of 
pending civil cases increased from 1 64 days as of June 30, 



1983 to 271 days as of June 30, 1984; and the median age 
for civil cases at disposition increased from 302 days in 
1982-83 to 313 days in 1983-84. 

The 1983-84 aging data for pending cases in the two 
criminal case categories show increases from the median 
ages reported for 1982-83. The median age of pending 
felony cases increased from 80 days as of June 30, 1983 to 
89 days as of June 30, 1984, and an increase was recorded 
in the median age of pending misdemeanor cases, from 66 
days as of June 30, 1983 to 78 days as of June 30, 1984. 
The median age of felony cases at disposition dropped 
during the past fiscal year from 81 days in 1982-83 to 80 
days in 1983-84. The median age of misdemeanor cases at 
disposition also dropped, from 66 days in 1982-83 to 65 
days in 1983-84. 

These differences in the median ages of cases disposed 
of or still pending in superior courts can be attributed in 
part to the priority given criminal cases. The right of a 
criminal case defendant to a "speedy trial" is guaranteed 
in both the United States and North Carolina Constitu- 
tions; and current North Carolina statutes (G.S. 15A-701 
et seq.) prescribe that cases must be tried within 120 days 
of filing unless there has been justifiable delay for one or 
more of the reasons set out in the statutes. No comparable 
statutory standard for the speedy disposition of civil cases 
has been adopted in North Carolina, although the North 
Carolina Constitution does provide that "right and justice 
shall be administered without favor, denial, or delay''' in 
the section declaring every person's right to legal remedy 
for "injury in his lands, goods, person or reputation." 
(Article 1, Section 18, N.C. Constitution) 

During 1983-84, a Statewide total of 80,558 cases of all 
types were filed in the superior courts. This was a decrease 
of 4,930 (5.8%) from 1982-83 case filings of 85,488. 

As for the manner of dispositions, it is noteworthy that 
jury trials in superior court continue to be responsible for 
a low percentage of case dispositions: 9 10 civil cases (6.9% 
out of a total of 1 3,28 1 ; 1 , 1 26 felony cases (5.7%) out of a 
total of 4 1 ,698; and 1 , 1 26 misdemeanor cases (4.4%) out 
of a total of 25,3 1 1 misdemeanor dispositions. 

The data tables also show that pleas of guilty were 
entered in a majority (55.5%) of criminal case dispositions 
in the superior courts during 1983-84. 



77 



SUPERIOR COURT CASELOAD 

1983-84 



50 



40 



I 

H 
O 

r 
s 

\ 
\ 

D 

S 

() 
F 

C 

\ 
S 

I 

s 



30 



20 



Filings 
Dispositions 
End Pending 



42,160 



41,698 



12,482 



13,281 



13,677 



T 

CIVIL 



25,916 



25.31 



14,400 



T 

FELONIES 



7.948 



MISDEMEANORS 



For the third straight year, civil case dispositions out- 
numbered filings in superior court; dispositions exceeded 
filingsby 6.4%during 1983-84. Felony case filings in 1983- 
84 decreased by 3. 5% from the 1982-83 filings while felony 



dispositions in 1983-84 decreased 3.0% from the 1982-83 
period. Filings of misdemeanor appeals in 1983-84 de- 
clined by 7. 1% and dispositions of misdemeanor appeals 
decreased by 6.8%. 



78 



CASELOAD TRENDS IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 
1974 Through 1983-84 



90 



T 
H 
O 

U 

s 

A 

N 
D 

S 



o 

F 



80 



70 



60 



50 



40 



30 




End Pending 



i i ' i I 1 I i I 1 I 

74 75 76 77 78 78-79 79-80 80-81 81-82 82-83 83-84 



Filings and dispositions decreased in all areas of the 
superior court case load during the 1983-84 fiscal year. 
Civil dispositions fell by 9.5%, felony dispositions 
decreased by 3.0%, and misdemeanor appeals declined by 



6.8%. This decrease, the first since 1977, is attributable to 
a 10.2% decrease in civil filings, 3.6% decrease in felony 
filings and 7.1% decrease in misdemeanor appeals. 



79 



T 
H 
O 
U 

s 

\ 

N 
D 
s 



O 

I 



CASELOAD TRENDS OF CIVIL CASES IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

1974-1983-84 



20 



End Pending 
• • • 




Filings 



4 Dispositions 



74 75 76 77 78 78-79 79-80 80-81 81-82 82-83 83-84 



Dispositions of civil cases exceeded filings for the third 
year; this resulted in a drop in the volume of pending cases 
as of the end of the year. 



80 



CIVIL 



LIFETIMES OF SUPERIOR COURT CASES 
Median Ages (in days) of Cases Pending 6/30/84 

271.0 



FELONY 




MISDEMEANOR 




78.0 



-+ 



100 



200 



300 



400 



Median Ages (in days) of Cases Disposed of During 1983-84 



CIVIL 



FELONY 



MISDEMEANOR 



313.0 



80.0 



65.0 



100 



200 



300 



400 



The median age of a case category is the age with respect 
to which 50% of all cases in the category are younger and 
50% of all cases are older than the median age; it is the 
50th percentile of ages of all cases in the category. As 
shown in the above graphs, the median ages of all civil 



superior court cases pending and disposed during fiscal 
year 1983-84 are greater than the median ages of criminal 
superior court cases pending and disposed. This is due to 
civil cases taking longer than criminal cases to process. 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CIVIL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1983 — June 30, 1984 





Pending 




Total 




% Caseload 


Pending 




7/1/83 


Filed 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/84 


District 1 
















Camden 


11 


6 


17 


5 


29 


4 


12 


Chowan 


26 


23 


49 


17 


34 


6 


32 


Currituck 


27 


27 


54 


31 


57 


4 


23 


Dare 


92 


66 


158 


58 


36 


7 


100 


Gates 


10 


15 


25 


13 


52 





12 


Pasquotank 


60 


62 


122 


70 


57 


3 


52 


Perquimans 


33 


29 


62 


36 


58 





26 


District Totals 


259 


228 


487 


230 


47 


2 


257 


District 2 
















Beaufort 


85 


79 


164 


82 


50 





82 


Hyde 


18 


10 


28 


15 


53 


5 


13 


Martin 


33 


39 


72 


39 


54 


1 


33 


Tyrrel 1 


7 


6 


13 


6 


46 


1 


7 


Washington 


27 


30 


57 


28 


49 


1 


29 


District Total s 


170 


164 


334 


170 


50 


8 


164 


District 3 
















Carteret 


137 


121 


258 


121 


46 


8 


137 


Craven 


185 


184 


369 


177 


47 


9 


192 


Paml ico 


18 


9 


27 


11 


40 


7 


16 


Pitt 


200 


238 


438 


222 


50 


6 


216 


District Totals 


540 


552 


1,092 


531 


48 


6 


561 


District 4 
















Dupl in 


108 


73 


181 


94 


51 


9 


87 


Jones 


19 


13 


32 


13 


40 


6 


19 


Ons low 


194 


160 


354 


155 


43 


7 


199 


Sampson 


70 


86 


156 


84 


53 


8 


72 


District Totals 


391 


332 


723 


346 


47 


8 


377 


District 5 
















New Hanover 


206 


208 


414 


202 


48 


7 


212 


Pender 


37 


17 


54 


21 


38 


8 


33 


District Totals 


243 


225 


468 


223 


47 


6 


245 


District 6 
















Bertie 


27 


19 


46 


31 


67 


3 


15 


Halifax 


(,',; 


59 


127 


67 


52 


7 


60 


Hertford 


68 


50 


118 


72 


61 





46 


Northampton 


44 


21 


65 


37 


56 


9 


28 


District Totals 


207 


149 


356 


207 


58 


1 


149 


District 7 
















Edgecombe 


88 


82 


170 


105 


61 


7 


65 


Nash 


116 


117 


233 


121 


SI 


9 


112 


V/i 1 son 


100 


74 


174 


93 


53 


4 


81 


District Totals 


304 


273 


577 


319 


55 


2 


258 


District 3 
















Greene 


16 


22 


38 


22 


57 


8 


16 


Lenoir 


141 


159 


300 


148 


49 


3 


152 




178 


175 


353 


156 


44 


1 


197 


District Totals 


335 


356 


691 


326 


47 


1 


365 



82 






CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CIVIL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1983 — June 30, 1984 



District 9 


Pending 

7/1/83 


Filed 


Total 
Caseload 


Disposed 


% Caseload 
Disposed 


Pending 

6/30/84 


Franklin 

Granville 

Person 

Vance 

Warren 


58 
47 
27 

74 

24 


42 
38 
35 
33 
18 


100 
85 
62 

107 
42 


53 
47 

30 
55 

16 


53.0 
55.2 
48.3 
51.4 
38.0 


47 

38 
32 
52 
26 


District Totals 


230 


166 


396 


201 


50.7 


195 


District 10 














Wake 


1,183 


1,035 


2,218 


1,160 


52.2 


1,058 


District 11 














Harnett 

Johnston 

Lee 


111 

132 

52 


125 
219 

75 


236 

351 
127 


143 

225 

76 


60.5 
64.1 
59.8 


93 

126 

51 


District Totals 


295 


419 


714 


444 


62.1 


270 


District 12 














Cumberland 
Hoke 


476 
11 


368 
18 


844 
29 


380 
15 


45.0 
51.7 


464 
14 


District Totals 


487 


386 


873 


395 


45.2 


478 


District 13 














Bladen 

Brunswick 

Columbus 


41 

60 

138 


41 

49 

100 


82 
109 
238 


42 
51 

mi 


51.2 
46.7 
42.4 


40 

58 

137 


District Totals 


239 


190 


429 


194 


45.2 


235 


District 14 














Durham 


429 


399 


828 


443 


53.5 


385 


District 15A 














Alamance 


179 


132 


311 


124 


39.8 


187 


District 15B 














Chatham 
Orange 


41 
162 


58 
141 


99 
303 


54 
176 


54.5 
58.0 


45 

127 


District Totals 


203 


199 


402 


230 


57.2 


172 


District 16 














Robeson 
Scotland 


135 

16 


126 

36 


261 
52 


119 

26 


45.5 
50.0 


142 
26 


District Totals 


151 


162 


313 


145 


46.3 


168 


District 17A 














Caswell 
Rockingham 


8 
93 


10 
105 


18 
198 


13 
118 


72.2 
59.5 


5 

80 


District Totals 


101 


115 


216 


131 


60.6 


85 


District 17B 














Stokes 
Surry 


16 

111 


38 
121 


54 
232 


23 
132 


42.5 
56.8 


31 

100 


District Totals 


127 


159 


286 


155 


54.1 


131 



S3 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CIVIL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1983 - June 30, 1984 



District 18 
Guilford 


Pending 

7/1/83 


Filed 


Total 
Caseload 


Disposed 


% Caseload 
Disposed 


Pending 
6/30/84 


Greensboro 
High Point 


1,242 
262 


727 

149 


1,969 

411 


715 

168 


36.3 

40.8 


1,254 
243 


District Totals 


1,504 


876 


2,380 


883 


37.1 


1,497 


District 19A 














Cabarrus 
Rowan 


128 

127 


129 
119 


257 

246 


124 
139 


48.2 
56.5 


133 
107 


District Totals 


255 


248 


503 


263 


52.2 


240 


District 19B 














Montgomery 
Randol ph 


20 
156 


21 
114 


41 
270 


8 
123 


19.5 
45.5 


33 
147 


District Totals 


176 


135 


311 


131 


42.1 


180 


District 20 














Anson 

Moore 

Richmond 

Stanly 

Union 


69 

127 

96 

87 

146 


43 
80 
68 
46 
112 


112 

207 
164 
133 
258 


57 

114 

61 

55 

118 


50.8 
55.0 
37.1 
41.3 
45.7 


55 
93 

103 
78 

140 


District Totals 


525 


349 


874 


405 


46.3 


469 


District 21 














Forsyth 


580 


633 


1,213 


648 


53.4 


565 


District 22 














Alexander 
Davidson 
Davie 
Iredell 


31 

146 

46 

135 


33 
142 

37 
160 


64 
288 

83 
295 


37 
172 

46 
163 


57.8 
59.7 
55.4 
55.2 


27 
116 

37 
132 


District Totals 


358 


372 


730 


418 


57.2 


312 


District 23 














Alleghany 
Ashe 
Wi 1 kes 
Yadkin 


20 

115 

32 


20 

19 

106 

32 


33 

39 

221 

64 


23 
20 
98 
30 


69.6 
51.2 
44.3 
46.8 


10 

19 

123 

34 


District Totals 


180 


177 


357 


171 


47.8 


186 


District 24 














Avery 

Madison 

Mitchell 

Watauga 

Yancey 


4 3 
3 7 
26 
62 
16 


46 

50 
36 

f,l 
19 


89 
87 
62 

129 
35 


51 

33 
29 
56 
24 


57.3 
37.9 
46.7 
43.4 
68.5 


38 
54 
33 
73 
11 


District Totals 


184 


218 


402 


193 


48.0 


209 


District 25 














Burke 

Caldwell 

Catav/ba 


193 

134 
265 


107 
122 
206 


300 
256 
471 


138 

146 
267 


46.0 
57.0 
56.6 


162 
110 
204 


District Totals 


592 


435 


1,027 


551 


53.6 


476 


District 26 














Mecklenburg 


2,313 


1,753 


4,066 


1,857 


45.6 


2,209 



84 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CIVIL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1983 - June 30, 1984 



District 27A 



Gaston 


District 27B 


Cleveland 


Lincoln 


District Totals 


District 28 


Buncombe 


District 29 


Henderson 


McDowell 


Polk 


Rutherford 


Transylvania 


District Totals 


District 30 



Cherokee 

Clay 

Graham 

Haywood 

Jackson 

Macon 

Swain 

District Totals 



Pending 

7/1/83 


Filed 


Total 
Caseload 


Disposed 


% Caseload 
Disposed 


Pending 

6/30/84 


374 


403 


111 


485 


62.4 


292 


125 

46 


118 
61 


243 
107 


122 

48 


50.2 

44.8 


121 

59 



171 



462 



176 
46 
24 

107 
44 

397 



32 

7 

8 

91 

102 

63 

29 

332 



179 



490 



102 

54 
13 
64 
55 

288 



36 

8 

18 

92 
43 
70 
18 

285 



350 



952 



278 
100 

37 
171 

99 

685 



15 

26 

183 

145 

133 

47 

617 



170 



564 



129 
43 
21 
83 

46 

322 



28 
6 

12 
68 

61 
56 
15 

246 



48.5 



59.2 



46.4 
43.0 
56.7 
48.5 
46.4 

47.0 



41.1 
40.0 
46.1 
37.1 
42.0 
42.1 
31.9 

39.8 



180 



388 



149 
57 
16 
88 
53 

363 



40 
9 
14 
115 
84 
77 
32 

371 



State Totals 



14,476 



12,482 



26,958 



13,281 



49.2 



13,677 



85 



METHODS OF DISPOSITION OF SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL CASES 

1983-1984 



.11 in, i 



JURY 




VOLUNIARY DISMISSAL 



The above graph of disposition methods for civil superior 
cases during 1983-84 shows that, as in previous years, 
voluntary dismissals represent the largest number of dis- 
positions. When compared to the 1982-83 data, these 



percentages show increased dispositions within the volun- 
tary dismissal and jury categories, and declines in the 
clerk, judge and other categories. 



86 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CIVIL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1983 — June 30, 1984 





Total 
Dispositions 


Judge 


Jury 


District 1 








Camden 

Chowan 

Currituck 

Dare 

Gates 

Pasquotank 

Perquimans 


5 
17 
31 
58 
13 
70 
36 



8 
16 
16 
7 
25 
16 



1 
1 
2 
1 
1 
3 


District Totals 


230 


88 


9 


District 2 








Beaufort 
Hyde 
Martin 
Tyrrel 1 
Washington 


82 
15 

39 

6 

28 


32 
6 

16 
1 

12 


9 

2 





District Totals 


170 


67 


11 


District 3 








Carteret 
Craven 
Paml ico 
Pitt 


121 

177 

11 

222 


31 

50 

2 

71 


6 

9 



17 


District Totals 


531 


154 


32 


District 4 








Dupl in 
Jones 
Onslow 
Sampson 


94 

13 

155 

84 


41 

3 

50 

28 


7 

6 
8 


District Totals 


346 


122 


21 


District 5 








New Hanover 
Pender 


202 
21 


71 
5 


16 
3 


District Totals 


223 


76 


19 


District 6 








Bertie 
Hal ifax 
Hertford 
Northampton 


31 
67 
72 
37 


14 
23 
33 
22 


i) 
3 
7 



District Totals 


207 


92 


10 


District 7 








Edgecombe 

Nash 

Wilson 


105 

121 

93 


47 
37 
35 


2 

1? 
10 


District Totals 


319 


119 


24 


District 8 








Greene 
Lenoir 
Wayne 


22 
148 
156 


10 
55 
45 




11 

6 


District Totals 


326 


110 


17 



Clerk 





Voluntary 




k 


Dismissal 


Other 


2 


3 





3 


3 


2 


1 


10 


3 


5 


21 


8 





3 


2 


9 


35 


(i 


7 


9 


1 



27 



1? 



31 



24 



'to 



50 



165 



109 
9 

118 



5 


4 


10 


28 


8 


24 





13 


2 3 


69 


9 


4', 


6 


61 


9 


36 



142 



16 



5 


22 


14 





7 


? 


2 


6 


13 


3 


2 





2 


13 


1 



3H 



11 


64 


9 


19 


93 


6 





5 


4 


21 


112 


1 


51 


274 


20 


6 


38 


2 


2 


8 





11 


83 


5 


12 


36 






3 

2 

13 



2 

5 
3 

L0 



2 





If) 


7 


74 


1 


20 


83 


2 



2H 



157 



13 



S7 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CIVIL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1983 - June 30, 1984 



District 9 

Frankl in 
Granville 
Person 
Vance 

Warren 

District Totals 

District 10 
Wake 

District li 

Harnett 

Johnston 

Lee 

District Totals 
District 12 



Bladen 

Brunswick 

Columbus 

District Totals 

District 14 
Durham 



Total 




Dispositions 


Judge 


53 


12 


47 


19 


30 


11 


55 


16 


16 


6 



201 



1,160 



143 

225 

76 

444 



42 

51 

101 

194 



443 



64 



513 



57 

83 
16 

156 



13 
22 
34 

69 



152 



Jury 



2 
5 
1 
3 

3 

14 



71 



14 

11 

6 

31 



Cumberland 
Hoke 


380 

15 


136 

5 


23 



District Totals 


395 


141 


23 


District 13 









3 

6 
7 

16 



52 



Clerk 



37 



62 



11 

1 

12 



32 



Voluntary 
Dismissal 



34 
21 
17 
28 
5 



105 



493 



4 


66 


50 


77 


8 


46 



189 



206 
9 

215 



22 
22 
57 

101 



185 



Other 



11 



46 



22 



District 15A 
Alamance 



124 



44 



12 



62 



District 15B 

Chatham 
Orange 

District Totals 
District 16 



Stokes 

Surry 

District Totals 



54 
176 

230 



23 

132 

155 



19 
76 

95 



9 

',n 

6 3 



5 
16 

21 



Robeson 


119 


4/ 


12 


Scotland 


26 


10 


1 


District Totals 


145 


57 


13 


District 17A 








Caswel 1 


13 


5 





Rockingham 


118 


36 


21 


District Totals 


131 


41 


21 


District 17B 









5 
8 

13 



10 
4 

14 



14 
76 

90 



47 
10 

57 



7 
55 

62 



12 
66 

78 



11 



11 



88 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CIVIL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1983 — June 30, 1984 



Total 
Dispositions 



Judge 



Jury 



Clerk 



Voluntary 
Dismissal 



Other 



District 18 
Guilford 



Greensboro 
High Point 


715 
168 


232 
62 


31 
7 


District Totals 


883 


294 


38 


District 19A 








Cabarrus 
Rowan 


124 
139 


40 
33 


6 
18 


District Totals 


263 


73 


24 


District 19B 








Montgomery 
Randolph 


8 
123 


1 

44 


2 
8 


District Totals 


131 


45 


10 


District 20 








Anson 

Moore 

Richmond 

Stanly 

Union 


57 

114 

61 

55 

118 


29 
46 
21 
20 
38 


1 

10 

3 





District Totals 


405 


154 


14 


District 21 








Forsyth 


648 


218 


52 


District 22 








Alexander 
Davidson 
Davie 
Iredell 


37 
172 

46 
163 


10 
60 
17 
65 


3 
8 

3 


District Totals 


418 


152 


14 


District 23 








Alleghany 
Ashe 
Wi 1 kes 
Yadkin 


23 
20 
98 
30 


15 

8 

41 

8 


1 

5 
5 


District Totals 


171 


72 


11 


District 24 








Avery 

Madison 

Mitchell 

Watauga 

Yancey 


51 
33 
29 
56 
24 


16 
22 
11 

21 

7 



2 
1 
2 
2 


District Totals 


193 


77 


7 


District 25 








Burke 

Caldwell 

Catawba 


138 
146 
267 


41 
68 

84 


15 

7 

15 


District Totals 


551 


193 


37 


District 26 









46 
6 

52 



6 
6 

12 



20 



38 



31 



Mecklenburg 



1,857 



460 



130 



36 



133 



384 
92 

476 



70 
80 

150 



5 
61 

66 



3 


24 


4 


52 


8 


26 


1 


31 


4 


71 



204 



321 



205 



1 


2 





10 


1 


4Q 


1 


15 



76 



65 



165 



1,127 



22 
1 

23 




2 
3 
3 
5 

13 



19 



1 


22 


1 


8 


86 


in 


1 


24 


4 


21 


73 


l 



16 



1 


11 


23 


1 


8 





3 


8 


6 


2 


30 


1 





8 


7 



37 



9 


71 


2 


3 


36 


32 


24 


58 


86 



120 



89 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CIVIL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1983 - June 30, 1984 



Total 
Dispositions 



Judge 



Jury 



District 27A 



Gaston 


485 


154 


56 


District 27B 








Cleveland 


122 


29 


14 


Lincoln 


48 


9 


5 


District Totals 


170 


38 


19 


District 28 








Buncombe 


564 


204 


56 


District 29 








Henderson 


129 


63 


8 


McDowell 


43 


21 





Polk 


21 


11 





Rutherford 


S3 


34 


12 


Transyl vania 


46 


24 


2 


District Totals 


322 


153 


22 


District 30 









Cherokee 

Clay 

Graham 

Haywood 

Jackson 

Macon 

Swain 

District Totals 
State Totals 



28 
6 

12 
68 
61 
56 
15 

246 
13,281 



13 
3 
7 

32 

32 

24 

4 

115 
4,625 



910 



Clerk 



16 



7 
5 

12 



36 



13 



4 
2 

7 
2 
8 
2 

25 

852 



Voluntary 
Dismissal 



248 



69 
28 

97 



258 



130 



5 

1 

4 

27 

20 

21 

5 

83 

6,373 



Other 



11 



10 



2 


56 





2 


19 


1 


1 


9 





3 


32 


2 


5 


14 


1 



5 

1 

4 
3 
2 

15 
521 



90 



m M m cti w ^f q- en 



UD MOO* 



r^ •—< o r-» 



PO CO o oo 



r-H CM 



oo co r-~ «=d- *d- cn co 



■nro ai woi 



NWOOl 



<* o 

U ac 

*•- "7 

o J. 



o •— h un o o cm oo co 



cm cm co cm un 



toroiDin 



•— < CTl O -3" 



.-< CM 



oo 

oo 

Q< cy 

o s 

X c 

o •= 

5 Q 

fin 



w 



{=> S. 

H5 



r 



OPHDHOCOCO 



oooinoom 
en cm co cm oo I — oo 

r^ O CO un OO CO CM 
LO <^- CM CM OO CM CM 



=3- cn co cm ■— i co *d- r-H 

<*ai ooiooico cm 

h uioirNrscOH co 

r~ >3- oo oo ^ cm oo oo 



<3" CM CO I— I O0 CO 



O O O O un 

OO LfO O0 OO »—* 

•—( «3" CO ■— I 1^ 

OO CM O0 CM CM 



<t mro coco 

O0 ^t" -3- CM OO 



00 >—* CM CM CM LiO 



o o o o 

en co oo oo 

>=}- CO CM O 

O0 CM O0 CM 



o <^- co en en 

ONCVJOI O 

CO .—1 CO CO CM 

OO OO LfO CM O0 



o en cm en 



o o o o 

cm CO en cn 

■*LnLno 

O0 CM CM CM 



■3- r^ ■=!• CM 

*d- o r^ o 
^1- oo oo oo 



tn^-OLri 



O i-h 
CO CO 
CM U0 



<s- o 

LO LT) 
OO CO 



n^ co oo 



en co <^- uo 



o o un o o 

q- co oo un r^ 

un o co o ■— i 

oo oo cm -3- oo 



*3- cm r~~ en co 

co -^- en co oo 

MJlHfO .— I 

oo oo ^3- un «^j- 



oo oo co oo in 



C/3 

W 

< 

u 



< 

■a 

c 
« 

oc 
o 

r<0. 



O £ 

u 



01 



o 



a vi 



'■5 » 



£ 2 



oo p^ uo <— i oo un CTt oo 



.— i O «— t o <3- un r^ CO 



^-i cm <— I 



ojco^-nHOH 



.— < .—I OO 



^j- ^r cti m co 



o CD o o o o Ln 

en r^ r^ oo oo un CM 

i— i o cm co ■— i cn co 

OO OO i— I OO CM CM OO 



co i— i co cn i — ooi — co 

foiniN^ro noi r^ 

unococMLnooo in 

=3-r-CMuncMoo*3- «*■ 



o oo O i— I oo CM 



nrHCDON 



O O O O O 

oo co co un co 
oo oo o ■— I o 

CM <^ CM CM CM 



r — cm CTi cn uo r-~ 

CO co un co cm i—f 

CO CM 00 co cn CM 

oo etf- CM cn CM oo 



0\J COCON d> 



OOOLd 



OIHNN 

CO CD CD cn 

CM CM <=d- CM 



CO CM CTi ■* CO 

cm -^- oo en CD 

CO CO CM CTi "3- 

oo oo ^3- CXI oo 



r^ cm co co 

OlOlrHrt 
r- < r-l CM 



O O O O CD 



N COCO* 



CM CM CO cn 



HNOILO CM 

r— I OO 



o un o cd 



o cn 
cn un 

CM OO 


oo 

LO 
OO 


o 
o 

CM 


CvJ 
O 

oo 


CM 


CM 

O 


co 

CM 


CO 
CM 


OO CO CO 

cm oo un 
O0 i— 1 oo 


CD 
CM 


«* CO 


CM 


OO 


un 


CO 


CO 


_ 


oo 


oo 


oo 


UO 


«* 


cm cn 

CM CO 


o 
cn 


OO 


CM 
*3- 


un 
oo 


O 
ID 


CD 

o 


cn 
■3" 


00 
oo 


oo 


oo 


cn 
CVJ 

<3- 


r-~ cn 

CO •-> 


cn 
cn 


CM 
1 — 


i — 


CM 


oo 

ro 


un 


LO 


o 

CO 


co 


CO 
CM 


cn 



i— I OO 







u 






CO 


cn 






3 






4-> 


^ 


c 


c 


+J 






O 


»p- 


CO 


It3 






c/) 


-J 


-! 


o 


s 


i_ 


(1) 


CI) 


CT 


CT 


'r- 


o 


i_ 


!_ 


-!-> 


to 


S_ 


10 


-C 


"3 


US 


m 


a; 


(11 


CJ 


<_) 


<—> 


Q 


CJ 


Q_ 


D_ 



cn 



<_) 



O C r— 

M- -i— CD ••— +J 

3 d) +-> S- .C uo 

«T) 1- t 1/1 T- 

cu >-, /a >> 03 Q 

CDIZH3 



rO t- A3 »i— CD •>— 

uuo-o. a 



r w O W 

I CD r — O. 

o_ c uo E 
3 o c: n3 

i OTOCO 



X S- E -r- 

di JJ O «J S- 
■■- ci_ 4- jr +-> 



91 



r— 1 .—I CO 



r-nDiDir)<J CSJ 



UT) ID i-H CM 



CO Cvl ID 



r— 1 O in ID 



Q 


c 
w 


















e 




CM 


oo 


CO 
CM 




o 


















y 










: 










o. 


IT, 








Q 




1 — 


in 


_ 




CM 


ci 


CM 



r-im^roN co 



r-~ cm o~> 



m in co co 
•— i i— i oo 



10 id in CM CM 



ro ■* r-i co 



CTN M" CO 


ID 


r- <3- en 


O 


rHMW 


id 


oo oo 


CO 





"T 




3C 




m 




3C 


X 


0> 






£ 


** 


O 


09 
U 


u 


y 

£ 


as 
c 


M 
S 

Z 


mm 


3 


z, 





2 


■a 

C 

a 


r 


■f 




5 


_ 


■r. 



3- 2 

H u 



•! < 



cm in *s- 

CM CM CM 



IDC1C0 CO 

co id r-» *f 
cm ro co co 



i— i ■— ( CO 



.—I CM 



CM ID CM 
r- 1 CM CM 



«d- co «3- 

CM CO OO 



•-* rt CO 



o r-. >a- i-i 



oovDini — i— i 



o o o o o o 

in CO r-- l-~ ld r-^ 

o co cm oo en co 

ra- co ^d- co cm co 



r-~ i— i in i— i en cm 

CO CO CM ID CO CD 

ai -h co ro cnj co 

<a- «3- **• ■* ld *a- 



ID OO O in ■* CO 



o o o in 



oirON 


en 


in oo 


r-. co o 


en 


cm in 


CM ■— 1 CM 


i — i 


CO i— 1 



m >* co co 

o .-i cm o 

i— » i— » m in 

OO CM CM CM 



in in 
en co 

CO CM 



r-» «d- co 

CO CO •—! 



en ^3" CM CM 

co in «d- I — 

CO *3" D1 CO 



■jaio en 



CM r— CO CM 



U 2 



C J, 



tvjoinwN 10 
.— i i— i cm in 



co i— i CO •— i r- 



CM CM 00 CM 
.-! <-l CO 



co cm in 



> * 
o g 

w u 






s jl 



to yD O CM 



co id ■=]- 


CO 


SWH 


O 


HCMrt 


m 


«3" CO 


00 



CO CM i— I 
r-~ ID CO 
^H CM CO 



— i CO CM ID 



— 


-•■ 


— I 


n 


IT 


. — 1 


»» 




lO 


T 


r- 


co 






r j 


CO 


co 


CO 




ZJ. 






















■a 













— 


n 


in 


<" 1 




CO 


s 


CD 


^ 


00 


in 

r i 



in cm in 

rtrHCO 



CM CM I— I I— 1 

r>- ^J- CM CTi 

CO lO r-. i— i 

■—I CM CO CO 



U3 N n in 

.— i in en id 

^-i--i co 



en in oo in id 



o in in in o 
en oo co co in 

o ID CM ID 00 
CO CM .— I CO CM 



cm co in en id 
id cm en oo id 

CO CO ^H CO CO 



N COOJCvJ ID 

>3- co co in cm 



in CD o 



CM CM CO 

cr. «a- en 


o 
1 — 


en cm 

CO ID 
CO i-l 


CM 
CO 
CO 


ocom 

O ID CO 
CO CM CO 


HH1D 


CO 


CD i-t 


ID 


in in i—i 


i — en en 

CM O r-t 
CM CM CM 


OJ 


i—1 ID 

en o 

CO CM 


in 

CO 
CO 


cm "3- r-. 

i— i *3- en 
co ro co 



>cj- -=1- 00 



^ fD I. C S- 



4-> O 
+-> 4-> 
QJ 10 



H3 O <U Q •(- 



i— •<- o 

S_ S- 

cu -t-* 
.o ai n 

E ^: •.- 

3 o o 



U in 
■r- 3 

CU in E 

<d 3 I— 
f— S- O 

CDCDU 



92 



£ CM 



CO CM ID 



— I CO 

ro «a- 



OOl Cn 



Q 


o 
»«1 




r> 


c 
o 


* 


£ 


ro 


i/» 









CL 


i^i 


.a 


vC 



Q 2 



CO o 



o — 

2 * 



■cr r-> r-i 



i-l r-H CvJ 



.— I r-H CM 



CM CXl r-l 

i-i cm «a- 



r«-> 
00 

in 2 



73 DC 







i- 


P 


>< 


c .. 


O 


93 
U 

</) 


3 & 


o 




■o 

_ »> 

2 S 

o a, 


M 


3 


H .2 


OS! 


Q 


a 


w 

Cu 


T3 

in 

O 

a. 




P 




c/} 


1/5 

5 




w 


</) 


© 


H 


u 


r— 

A 



o en 
lo o 
cm ro 



ro in r— 1 

^t CO i-H 

cnio in 

c\j ro ro 



m r-. 
ro cm 



*d- ro 


r— 1 


I — in 


r-. i-i 


i— l 


•* cn 


•-h ro 


CO 


cm cm 



^d- O CD 
r— i-i o 

CM CO CO 



>tf- i-h 
ro 00 

CM CM 



OH i-l 



r-- ■— i lo 
o o o 



OliH IT) 
CO 00 r-H 
ro cm ro 



in cm i— i 
ro cn en 
ro ro ro 



ID CM CM 



Cn Cn 

in co 
in ^f 


LD 

in 


ld r-. 

CM i—l 

>a- ro 


co 

LD 

ro 


ro .— i 
en ^f 
cm *J- 


in co 

r-H LO 
1-^ r— 1 


ro 

CO 

co 


<d- o-> 
cm ro 


ro 

LD 
CM 


co ro 

CM 



O LD O O O 

r-l CM LD CD i-H 
LD r-l LO r- CO 

■a- in r^r ro ^i- 



MNNCON CTi 

O r-l CO "-I O r-l 

ro •<)■ CTl CM ^J" O 

ld in «^r r^r *d- in 



Nrj-i-iinco in 
in r— i ld in r— I o 

r-l r-l r^- 



O r— 1 r— 1 



cm r— cn 



Vl 

w 

< 

u 



4> 


a 


OX 


— * 


< 


4> 


c 


m 


« 


E 


t 


■a 


00 


c 



r-. 


ro cn 


CM 


Cn 


ro cm 


LD 


CM 







Cn vjd lo 



Lb '"2 

OS T 

a. = 



•— I l—l CM 



ro cm in 



</> 
at 
M 



.2 v 


o 


■D M 




2 < 


a) 


S 


CO 



r-l CM 1—1 



s 


< 


CO 


CM ■* 




CO 


cm in 






<* 


CM CM 




ox 








c 
















H 


■o 


r-% 


in I — 


4* 


co 


•* CM 



in in in 

r-i co od 

cn cm in 

CM r— I CM 



cm cn 
r-. en 

rO r-H 



CD LD 
ro in 

r-H CM 



ld ro CM 

cocn o 

-^" CM r- 1 

i— I CM CM 



in i-h 


ro 


in o 


r^- ro 


<* 


CO CM 


=d- *r 


<* 


H CM 



LO >* 


ro 


CD *d- 


ro in 


CM 


r-~ in 


LD rjj- 


in 


CM CM 



in o 


in 


i-H O 


, — i 


^t- ro 


h^ 


ro r~» 


CO 


CO 


ro o 


ro 


in >3- 


cn 


ro o 






i—i 


r-H 


CSJ CM 


"3- 


r-H r-H 



LO cn LD 



r-H r-H CM 



CTI CO r^- 

o ro i— i 
ro ro ro 



cm ro 

cn sj- 



cn cn co co •=!■ ro 



o O o CD O 
ro cm ld I — i-h 

flOOl^N 

ro ro ro >=}■ cm 



r-H CM CM O r-H CO 

SOlO-lDrJ CO 

cn cm ro ro c\j r-. 

nrj- rv inn i=r 



ro r-v 


o 


m ro ro CO o 


ro i* 


co 


inoios^t 



(-> CD 



O U CD 

err oo 



r— c 
cu -r- 
3 -x 





O 






o 


<C 






o 


ca 






r- 


CO 

r-H 


O 4-> 


i— 


en 
r-i 






1— 


cn 
r-i 


>i 




•!-> 




S- C 


■!-> 








4J 




i- 




U 


4-> -O 


O T- 


O 


+-> 


L0 




<J 


4-> 


CU -£= 




■ r- 


U S- 


-O o 


• r— 


u 


3 




•r— 


<_) 


E Q. 


LO 


s- 


•r- o 


L0 Q_ 


S- 




!_ 




S_ 




o ■— 


CU >, 


+-> 


S_ 4- 


c 


+-) 


i_ 


S- 


c 


4-> 


s_ 


CT> o 


-* i~ 


u-> 


4-1 r— 


cu -c 


LO 


+-> 


ra 


ro 


U0 


•!-> 


+-> "O 


o s_ 


■!— 


L0 *!— 


cu cn 


•i— 


uo 


JD 


S 


-r- 


L0 


C C 


+-> 13 


Q 


•r- 3 


l_ -r- 


Q 




<o 


o 


CD 




o io 


OO OO 




CD CD 


co 3: 




O 


<-J 


ce 




Q 


s: q: 



o >, 
c cu E ■— c: 
o s- jC c o 
lo o u t3 ■■- 
c o ■!- +j c 
■=r s: err oo => 



93 



rHNOO OO 



•— i oo — i cm <\j cn 



cn «=3" r*. cn in LD 

i— I ^H LD 



nr>.roN 



.-h oo 



oo 

«5f 



>*«» CftH CO 



lOrH OD^ <J3 



r~~ *d- oo r— i •—< in 

.—I CM 



O r— I 



oo •— i cn in 





3C 




t*) 




3C 


X 


c 




k_ 
9) 
U 




>« 


— * 


_ 


c 


a 
u 


u 


_ 


X 


£X 


c 


u. 


■> 


2 


2£ 


^ 


K 


-5 


— 


s- 






— 


C 


s: 


-—. 


U 


y 


= 


s 


- 


3 
>-< 



.—I oo 



Z c - 

w < S 

< I g 



00 i— I 



oo o o m 

c\jco r^ co oo 

i — o <3- co r-* 

c\in cm c\j c\j 



"3-CSJ O Cn 

cncM m *3- 
i — ro t—t co 

CMOO OO CM 



NMIDCO CO 

ro n *^- in i— i 



c\j <— i cnj c\j r — 

CM ^H CNJ U0 



coic in co cm 



O O LD LD 
Cn CO KD Cn 

•a- oo r- CO 
r— i ro <d- ro 



O O I — uo CM 



<3" <3" Cn .— t 
CM ^3- ^3- ro 



ONNC) 



ro cm in en cn 



CM CO CM CI i-H 



r^ COrHCDLD •—* 



O o o o o 

WOTrtOl 
Id NCOM nH 

cm ro >— i ro ro 



HHNMO LO 

<t rncM CON ro 

inain hcti cm 

cm ro cm ro «3- ro 



rHC\J«^O0H O 



oiwioin^ in 



l-H rj- 



IDiOO CM 
.—i r- r-l in 
in ro ro ro 



*d- lo in cn 
cm cn .-h CO 
lo ro oo ro 



MlDS .—i 

ro q- in in 

■HrHM U0 



LD LD CM 



i— I CM 



O LD LD 
LD -3- «3- 

ro ro oo 



in«t ro 

CM 00 —" 

ro cm oo 



<3- CM uo 



> 


^ 


£ 




- 


u 








» 


c 


■a 






e 


X 


s 








w 


f 




= 




U 


w 




■5 





iO>* in ro oo 



< -s 



om o o o 

r-CM o O ro 

ocn m cm cn 

rHi— I rt CM i— I 



ro ro r— < in ro 



CM «3" CO r~- i— i 



in o oin 



HOlDCO 
oo *3- in c3- 

t— I CM CM CM 



ro r^ n- n c\j in 



in o o o o 


o 


367.5 
198.0 
257.5 


o 


r-~ r-» cm cm oo 

nn^rHCM 
I— 1 .— 1 CM cm ro 


oo 


00 
in 
CM 



o o 
oo m 

CM i— I 
CM CM 



cm n in in in 

cnin o o *3- 

^3-^r oo cn m 

^H CM CM CM CM 



in in .— < *3- 



oo o cn o 
«* o o l-H 
cm ro ro ro 



O i— i in CO cn 

n> aicucoit 
cn ro .— < ro in 
•—* cm <cr cm ro 



cn ^r .-h cm 
i— < cn i— i •—< 
^ cm ro ro 



cm cn 
r- cnj 

CM CM 






r-^ <x> r*-. c\j C\j 
^h ^h ro 



<xj cz> ^r ud 



a> 


c 






u 


a 


o 




1 — 


•f— 


c 


(/) 








»o 


o 


ai 


01 


4-J 


/ 






a 


I/) 


'.; 


^ 


^ 


ai 


•#— 




rfl 


H3 


s_ 


' . 


ct 






-- 





aj a» -^ -^ 



T> Q t- 



C . — ro 

O <D cn >^ 

S- -f- U fO u 

cu "o +-> •i-' c 

<: 2: 2: 3 >- 





r— 


W 




CIJ 


jd 


cu 


s 


£ 


.^ 


T3 


fO 


u 


^ - 


+J 


3 


"-, 


03 


co 


l_J 


O 



o -^ 



IB C 'i- 



r— •!- O 



94 



p 



oroi~-w* lo 

r-H LO 



"3" t— IM LDOWrv .—I i—l 



c 





vo <h nin o 




>3- •-> «d- csj 




CI 










v) 






o 






CL 


If) 





k m m rH oi con ro 



os co >3- co lo >a- 



inO"j-oimc\jH 



Ov ,— I 



csj lo i— i co r— co 



Ol MONi 



< — ii — i t— < LO 





-* 






© 










<* 




00 
1 
















CSI 




90 

Os 


















C/3 

H 




c 
.2 

'■5 


at 


O CD O O O 


LT) 


LO O O O O LT) O 

HCOOOlHWO 


o 

1 — 


o 


rj- i — inoir-- 


LO 


ro 


L. 




a» 


< 


LO CO LO ^J- 1 — 


CO 


O LO ID ID M N Ol 


o 


i — i 


« 




2 




un CSJ m LO CO 


"=J- 


csj co co csj Ln t— i ^s- 


ro 


ro 


V 
















P 


>< 




c 














O 

u 


"3 

u 

t/5 




< 


iriN<*oco 


Ol 


co lo os cm os rs o 

COrociNi-nDtt 


LO 


os 


MHCMHCl 


LD 


OS 








rrjq-oi — 


is 


CO in is xt i-h ID <* 


o 


co 


b 








LO CO LO LO CO 


«* 


CSJ CO CO CO LO CSJ LO 


^r 


ro 


as 
o 


0£ 




"5 


<** 

© 


OS CO 1— 1 CO LO 


CVJ 


CO LO CSJ CO I— < LO LO 


LO 




'la 




© 


CM **■ CM 00 «* 


CSI 


CSI >— 1 LO LO LO i— 1 


^f 


CO 


m 


3 




H 


(/I 


«— 1 


CO 




CSJ 


CSI 


OS 


Q 






5 










ro 


w 


o 
a 


















Cu 


















P 


















Cfl 


5 


















w 


!/> 






e 












H 


4> 

U 






ei 


co uo c\j lo cm 


h- 


O O O CO CO CO LO 


LT) 


LD 






A 


CsJ 


CO 


.—1 HPlrt 


is 


o 

IS 

r— 1 


Z 


o 






o 












NH 


C/J 


to 




r~ 


rvOinno 


ro 


LO Csl ■— 1 CO i— ( OS >* 


LO 


LO 




04 


Q 




*© 


"3" .— 1 CO t— 1 


O 


CO CSJ i-H i— 1 


OS 


. — 1 


C/5 


ox 

< 


M 

U 

ft 




1*1 




. — i 






LO 

ro 


C/3 
< 


T3 

c 


99 

U 

u 




IT; 
Cl 


<d- CvJ ^3" CO ■— i 


en 


CTt LO LO LO ^T CTi LO 


ro 


CO 


,c 






ro csj i— i csj 


OS 


CSJ -H .— 1 


oo 


CSJ 


u 


00 


■5 
c 




90 










«* 



8 I 



O £ 

w I 



04 

ox 



rs ,— i o OS CO 



.— 1 .-H LO 



O O LO LO CO 

rs «a- "* co co 

st LOt»)fs<J 
CO CSI CO CSJ CSJ 



CO LO "=f Csj "3" .— < 

vt rs cxiisro co 

r-H CO LO csj i — LO 

"^- CO CO CO CSJ CO 



co csj co ^r lo ro *3- 



rs old ai oro m 



o o o o o o LO 



t-h LO OS CO CSJ LO LO 

o i — csj lo csj is rs 

CO CSJ i-H CSJ LO CSJ «^(- 



O LO <3" rs CO CO LO CO 

co csj rs csj lo rs ,— i csi 

«3- CO lo lo lo lo co «=j- 

ci- CSJ i— I CO LO CO LO ■* 









m 









13 


os rs lo co co 


C 


■3-lom com 


4» 


i— i 



s_ 


aj 


s_ 


>, 


L- 


■,— 


-±i 


E 


O O 






0) 


S 


CD 


<S) 


-!-> 


S_ 


a 


13 


O L0 


CT 


c 


u 


o -^ 


-d 


c 


L0 


-U 


s- 


>i-£= 


£5 


C) 




c 


a i— 


+-> 


03 


■t— 


to 


cu 


(T3 TO 


LJ 


to 


a> 


u o 


-3 


i- 


a 




-C 


■— S_ 


ro ro 


fTJ 


^ 


i 


S a. 


Cd 


\— 




Q 


C_) 


LJ O 


X ■D 


s: 


oo 



•r- CO 



95 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR ESTATES AND SPECIAL 
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CLERKS OF SUPERIOR COURT 

July I, 1983 — June 30, 1984 









Estates 










Special Proceedings 






District 1 


Pending 

7 1 83 


Filed 


Total 
Caseload 


Disposed 


% Caseload 
Disposed 


Pending 

6/30/84 


Pending 

7/1/83 


Filed 


Total 
Caseload 


Disposed 


% Caseload 
Disposed 


Pending 

6/30/84 


Camden 

Chowan 

Currituck 

Dare 

Gates 

Pasquotank 

Perquimans 


42 
196 

123 
55p 
"9 
262 
170 


44 
155 
101 
143 

86 
227 

88 


86 

361 
224 
699 

165 

489 
258 


40 
118 

94 
481 

99 
220 

63 


46.5 
33.6 
41.9 
68.8 
60.0 
44.9 
24.4 


46 
233 
130 
218 

66 
269 
195 


16 
96 
62 
124 
12 
87 
44 


30 
58 
53 

90 

31 

140 

59 


46 
154 
115 
214 

43 
227 
103 


20 
45 
76 
82 
19 
132 
33 


43.4 
29.2 
66.0 
38.3 
44.1 
58.1 
32.0 


26 
109 

39 
132 

24 

95 
70 


District Totals 


1,428 


844 


2,272 


1,115 


49.0 


1,157 


441 


461 


902 


407 


45.1 


495 


District 2 


























Beaufort 

Hyde 

Martin 

Tyrrell 

Washington 


332 

64 
264 

32 
110 


357 
48 

214 
27 
89 


689 
112 

478 

59 

199 


342 
54 

178 
21 

96 


49.6 
48.2 
37.2 
35.5 
48.2 


347 
58 

300 
38 

103 


393 
46 

125 
11 
69 


164 

28 

155 

4 

74 


557 
74 

280 
15 

143 


114 

35 

79 

8 

106 


20.4 
47.2 
28.2 
53.3 
74.1 


443 
39 

201 

7 

37 


District Totals 


802 


735 


1,537 


691 


44.9 


846 


644 


425 


1,069 


342 


31.9 


727 


District 3 


























Carteret 
Craven 
Paml ico 
Pitt 


390 
471 

102 
649 


492 

403 

78 

591 


882 

874 

180 

1,240 


474 

336 

95 

580 


53.7 
38.4 
52.7 
46.7 


408 

538 

85 

660 


134 
197 

30 
166 


168 

276 

30 

421 


302 

473 

60 

587 


186 

262 

21 

379 


61.5 
55.3 
35.0 
64.5 


116 

211 

39 

208 


District Totals 


1,612 


1,564 


3,176 


1,485 


46.7 


1,691 


527 


895 


1,422 


848 


59.6 


574 


District 4 


























Dupl in 
Jones 
Onslow 
Sampson 


485 

70 

480 

49? 


353 

96 

369 

35 3 


838 

166 
849 

845 


340 

69 

338 

371 


40.5 
41.5 
39.8 
43.9 


498 

97 

511 

474 


260 

75 

318 

198 


169 

43 

538 

248 


429 
118 
856 
446 


198 

33 

477 

233 


46.1 
27.9 
55.7 
52.2 


231 

85 

379 

213 


District Totals 


1,527 


1,171 


2,698 


1,118 


41.4 


1,580 


851 


998 


1,849 


941 


50.8 


908 


District 5 


























New Hanover 
Pender 


1,268 
212 


744 
136 


2,012 

348 


1,212 
144 


60.2 

41.3 


800 
204 


267 

124 


786 

107 


1,053 
231 


892 
88 


84.7 
38.0 


161 

143 


District Totals 


1,480 


880 


2,360 


1,356 


57.4 


1,004 


391 


893 


1,284 


980 


76.3 


304 


District 6 


























Bertie 
Hal ifax 
Hertford 
Northampton 


192 
697 
185 

175 


160 
405 

214 
190 


352 

1,102 

399 

365 


147 
359 
208 
174 


41.7 
32.5 
52.1 
47.6 


205 
743 

191 
191 


79 

435 
94 

64 


66 

257 
111 
106 


145 
692 
205 
170 


66 
188 

84 
84 


45.5 
27.1 
40.9 
49.4 


79 
504 
121 

86 


District Totals 


1,249 


069 


2,218 


888 


40.0 


1,330 


672 


540 


1,212 


422 


34.8 


790 


District 7 


























Edgecombe 

Nash 

Wilson 


3 78 
509 
706 


465 
446 

446 


84 3 

955 

1,152 


467 
470 
504 


55.3 
49.2 
43.7 


376 

485 
648 


246 
282 
389 


235 
288 
339 


481 
570 
728 


208 
239 
267 


43.2 
41.9 
36.6 


273 

331 
461 


District Totals 


1,593 


1,357 


2,950 


1,441 


48.8 


1,509 


917 


862 


1,779 


714 


40.1 


1,065 


District 3 


























Greene 
Lenoir 

Wayne 


101 

361 


135 
478 
573 


236 

839 

1,577 


118 

4 39 
694 


50.0 
52.3 
44.0 


118 
400 
883 


67 
145 
391 


51 
328 

610 


118 

473 
1,001 


51 

322 
567 


43.2 
68.0 
56.6 


67 

151 
434 


District Totals 


1,466 


1,186 


2,652 


1,251 


47.1 


1,401 


603 


989 


1,592 


940 


59.0 


652 


District 9 


























Frankl in 
Granvil le 
Persor 

Vance 
Warren 


397 
239 
226 
381 
195 


225 

254 

'/■/'i 
260 
136 


622 
493 

455 
641 

381 


311 
269 
234 
325 

204 


50.0 
54.5 
51.4 
50.7 
53.5 


311 
224 
221 
316 
177 


205 
56 

103 

145 
81 


146 
345 
153 
148 

107 


351 
401 
256 
293 
188 


115 
350 
131 
235 
88 


32.7 
87.2 
51.1 
80.2 
46.8 


236 
51 

125 
58 

100 



District Totals 



1,438 1,154 2,592 1,343 



51.8 1,249 



590 



899 



1,489 



919 



61.7 



570 



96 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR ESTATES AND SPECIAL 
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CLERKS OF SUPERIOR COURT 

July 1, 1983 — June 30, 1984 



Estates 



Special Proceedings 



District 10 


Pending 

7/1/83 


Filed 


Total 
Caseload 


Disposed 


% Caseload 
Disposed 


Pending 

6/30/84 


Pending 

7/1/83 


Filed 


Total 
Caseload 


Disposed 


% Caseload 
Disposed 


Pending 
6/30/84 


Wake 


3,138 


1,547 


4,685 


1,496 


31.9 


3,189 


942 


1,420 


2,362 


1,303 


55.1 


1,059 


District 11 


























Harnett 

Johnston 

Lee 


518 
477 

457 


354 
525 
231 


872 

1,002 

688 


389 

487 
207 


44.6 
48.6 
30.0 


483 
515 

481 


234 

160 
313 


245 
533 
137 


479 
693 
450 


244 
500 
137 


50.9 
72.1 
30.4 


235 
193 
313 


District Totals 


1,452 


1,110 


2,562 


1,083 


42.2 


1,479 


707 


915 


1,622 


881 


54.3 


741 


District 12 


























Cumberl and 
Hoke 


814 
99 


808 
78 


1,622 
177 


821 
77 


50.6 

43.5 


801 

ion 


580 
60 


1,262 
98 


1,842 
158 


1,351 
94 


73.3 
59.4 


491 
64 


District Totals 


913 


886 


1,799 


898 


49.9 


901 


640 


1,360 


2,000 


1,445 


72.2 


555 


District 13 


























Bladen 

Brunswick 
Columbus 


138 
355 
420 


138 
332 

284 


276 
687 
704 


142 
316 

266 


51.4 
45.9 
37.7 


134 

371 
438 


59 
159 
474 


183 
163 
249 


242 
322 
723 


164 
186 
206 


67.7 
57.7 
28.4 


78 
136 

51/ 


District Totals 


913 


754 


1,667 


724 


43.4 


943 


692 


595 


1,287 


556 


43.2 


731 


District 14 


























Durham 


1,708 


1,031 


2,739 


1,003 


36.6 


1,736 


256 


974 


1,230 


956 


77.7 


274 


District 15A 


























Alamance 


715 


707 


1,422 


640 


45.0 


782 


224 


505 


729 


413 


56.6 


316 


District 15B 


























Chatham 
Orange 


314 

835 


229 

4 30 


543 
1,265 


225 
481 


41.4 
38.0 


318 
784 


ISO 
601 


121 

459 


280 
1,060 


105 
218 


37.5 
20.5 


175 
842 


District Totals 


1,149 


659 


1,808 


706 


39.0 


1,102 


760 


580 


1,340 


323 


24.1 


1,017 


District 16 


























Robeson 
Scotland 


537 
243 


593 
221 


1,130 
464 


553 
186 


48.9 
40.0 


577 
278 


275 
190 


482 
132 


757 

322 


507 
125 


66.9 
38.8 


250 
197 


District Totals 


780 


814 


1,594 


739 


46.3 


855 


465 


614 


1,079 


632 


58.5 


447 


District 17A 


























Caswell 
Rockingham 


140 
940 


126 
656 


266 
1,596 


124 
685 


46.6 
42.9 


142 
911 


51 
352 


71 
314 


122 

666 


76 
322 


62.2 
48.3 


46 

344 


District Totals 


1,080 


782 


1,862 


809 


43.4 


1,053 


403 


385 


788 


398 


50.5 


390 


District 17B 


























Stokes 
Surry 


209 
463 


182 
433 


391 

896 


193 
420 


49.3 
46.8 


198 

476 


68 
170 


147 
323 


215 
493 


143 
287 


66.5 
58.2 


72 
206 


District Totals 


672 


615 


1,287 


613 


47.6 


674 


238 


470 


708 


430 


60.7 


278 


District 18 


























Guilford 


2,919 


2,178 


5,097 


2,366 


46.4 


2,731 


656 


1,887 


2,543 


1,919 


75.4 


624 


District 19A 


























Cabarrus 
Rowan 


791 
938 


627 
872 


1,418 
1,810 


632 
841 


44.5 
46.4 


786 

969 


237 
272 


331 
939 


568 
1,211 


325 
878 


57.2 
72.5 


243 
333 


District Totals 


1,729 


1,499 


3,228 


1,473 


45.6 


1,755 


509 


1,270 


1,779 


1,203 


67.6 


576 


District 19B 


























Montgomery 
Randolph 


172 
568 


184 

642 


356 
1,210 


164 
597 


46.0 
49.3 


192 
613 


119 
131 


158 
387 


277 

518 


154 
397 


55.5 
76.6 


123 
121 



District Totals 



740 



826 



1,566 



761 



S.5 



805 



250 



545 



795 



551 



69.3 



24 4 



97 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR ESTATES AND SPECIAL 
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CLERKS OF SUPERIOR COURT 

July 1, 1983 — June 30, 1984 



Estates 



Special Proceedings 



District 20 

Anson 

Moore 

Richmond 

Stanly 

Union 

District Totals 

District 21 
Forsyth 

District 22 



District Totals 

District 28 
Buncombe 

District 29 

Henderson 

McDowell 

Polk 

Rutherford 

Transylvania 

District Totals 



Pending 

' 1 8.' 

4" 
451 

s:i 

a: 1 : 



Filed 

128 
454 
320 

452 
375 



Total 
Caseload 

605 
1,202 

771 
1,273 

111 



2,899 1,729 4,628 



2,027 



1,514 3,541 



Disposed 

115 

513 
303 
60] 

407 

1,939 



1,548 



905 



2,054 



697 
360 
2 1 8 
457 

'./;■ 



814 



1,719 



1,377 3,431 



569 
197 
159 
462 
195 



2,204 1,582 



1,266 
557 
377 
919 

667 

3,786 



859 



1,267 



S4 
175 

]?/ 
n? 4 
175 

1,441 



7c Caseload 
Disposed 

19.0 
42.6 
39.2 
47.2 
52.3 



49.9 



42.6 
31.4 
33.6 
46.1 
26.2 



Pending 

6/30/84 

490 
689 
468 
672 
370 



41.8 2,689 



43.7 1,993 



Alexander 
Davidson 
Davie 
Iredell 


141 

774 
138 
717 


146 
760 
159 
648 


287 
1,536 

297 
1,365 


146 
765 
153 
598 


50.8 
49.8 
51.5 

43.8 


141 
771 

144 
767 


District Totals 


1,770 


1,715 


3,485 


1,662 


47.6 


1,823 


District 23 














Alleghany 
Ashe 
Wi 1 kes 
Yadkin 


93 
165 
369 
279 


72 

173 
73 
201 


165 
338 

640 
480 


66 

160 

252 
209 


40.0 
45.8 
39.2 
43.5 


99 
183 
390 
271 


District Totals 


906 


719 


1,625 


682 


41.9 


943 


District 24 














Avery 

Madison 

Mitchell 

Watauga 

Yancey 


126 
158 
453 
231 
172 


106 

83 
128 
171 

130 


30 
241 

001 

402 

300 


93 

101 

80 

147 

100 


40.0 
41.9 
13.7 
36.5 
33.1 


139 
140 
501 
255 
202 


District Totals 


1,140 


618 


1,758 


521 


29.6 


1,237 


District 25 














Burke 

Caldwell 
Catawba 


749 

621 

1,174 


30,4 
401 
66 7 


1,133 
1,022 
1,841 


448 

360 
708 


39.5 
35.4 
38.4 


685 

660 

1,133 


District Totals 


2,544 


1,452 


3,996 


1,518 


37.9 


2,478 


District 26 














Mecklenburg 


3,334 


2,696 


6,030 


2,521 


41.8 


3,509 


District 27A 














Gaston 


1,432 


996 


2,428 


969 


39.9 


1,459 


District 27B 














Cleveland 
Lincoln 


634 
271 


539 
275 


1,173 
546 


592 

267 


50.4 
48.9 


581 

279 



860 



36.9 2,164 



726 

382 
250 

495 
492 



Pending 

7/1/83 

137 

125 
224 
232 
113 

831 



438 



317 



547 



473 



226 



Filed 

72 

276 
199 
205 
273 

1,025 



Total 
Caseload 

209 
401 
423 
437 
386 

1,856 



% Caseload 
Disposed Disposed 



64 
248 
129 
165 
301 

907 



851 



1,289 



724 



427 



744 



350 



1,063 



1,610 1,071 



2,008 2,431 4,439 2,016 



680 



1,153 



822 



632 



858 



644 



30.6 
61.8 
30.4 
37.7 
77.9 

48.8 



56.1 



47.0 



66.5 



71.2 



75.0 



Pending 

6/30/84 

145 
153 
294 
272 
85 

949 



296 


1,298 


1,594 


1,359 


85 


2 


235 


33 


129 


162 


101 


62 


3 


61 


159 


414 


573 


461 


80 


4 


112 


67 


108 


175 


98 


56 





77 


196 


376 


572 


412 


72 





160 


45S 


1,027 


1,482 


1,072 


72 


3 


410 


21 


60 


81 


54 


66 


6 


27 


77 


137 


214 


124 


57 


9 


90 


266 


466 


732 


389 


53 


1 


343 


74 


188 


262 


157 


59 


9 


105 



565 



73 


95 


168 


62 


36.9 


106 


59 


50 


109 


38 


34.8 


71 


45 


80 


125 


72 


57.6 


53 


93 


158 


251 


123 


49.0 


128 


47 


44 


91 


55 


60.4 


36 



394 



187 


395 


582 


393 


67.5 


189 


152 


317 


469 


298 


63.5 


171 


208 


351 


559 


380 


67.9 


179 



539 



45.4 2,423 



331 



140 


460 


600 


463 


77.1 


137 


86 


172 


258 


181 


70.1 


77 



214 



89 1 


04 


1,836 


806 


43.8 


1,030 


160 


267 


427 


259 


60.6 


168 


129 


158 


287 


180 


62.7 


107 


24 


56 


80 


64 


80.0 


16 


228 


232 


460 


188 


40.8 


272 


282 


120 


402 


188 


46.7 


214 



38.0 2,345 



323 



833 



1,656 



879 



53.0 



777 



98 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR ESTATES AND SPECIAL 
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CLERKS OF SUPERIOR COURT 

July 1, 1983 — June 30, 1984 











Estates 












Special Proceedings 








Pending 




Total 






% Caseload 


Pending 


Pending 




Total 




% Caseload 


Pending 






7/1/83 


Filed 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/84 


7/1/83 


Filed 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/84 


District 


30 




























Cherokee 




429 


172 


601 




143 


23.7 


458 


96 


100 


196 


100 


51.0 


96 


Clay 




51 


50 


101 




47 


46.5 


54 


28 


38 


66 


36 


54.5 


30 


Graham 




63 


46 


109 




22 


20.1 


87 


12 


33 


45 


23 


51.1 


22 


Haywood 




449 


361 


810 




357 


44.0 


453 


165 


253 


418 


222 


53.1 


196 


Jackson 




327 


140 


467 




156 


33.4 


311 


143 


156 


299 


116 


38.7 


183 


Macon 




412 


153 


565 




147 


26.0 


418 


242 


318 


560 


275 


49.1 


285 


Swain 




130 


75 


205 




74 


36.0 


131 


64 


53 


117 


62 


52.9 


55 


District 


Totals 


1,861 


997 


2,858 




946 


33.1 


1,912 


750 


951 


1,701 


834 


49.0 


867 


State Totals 


53,579 


39,477 


93,056 


39 


,872 


42.8 


53,184 


20,433 


30,645 


51,078 


29,007 


56.7 


22,071 



99 



CASELOAD TRENDS IN ESTATES AND SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS 

1974 — Estate Cases 1983-84 



ESTATE CASES 



I 

H 


I 

s 

\ 
\ 

n 
s 



\ 



c 

\ 

s 
I 

S 



Wl 



40 



20 



End Pending 
♦ 



• ••■ 




Dispositions 



"4 



I 

75 



76 



77 



n r- 1 1 1 1 1 — r 

78 78-79 79-80 80-81 81-82 82-83 83-84 



SPECIAL PROCEEDING CASES 



I 

H 


I 

S 

\ 

N 
I) 
S 



O 
I 



( 

A 
S 

[ 

s 



40 



JO 



20 



Filings 


a 




• 




"--*• 


_-^<^T— -•" 


^j— — 


s -+- Dispositions 

ft. 


• 


— •— ■"" 










. • • • • 


• 














•«• 


• 


End Pending 






















l 1 I 


1 


i i i 


i 


i 


i i 



74 75 76 77 78 78-79 79-80 80-81 81-82 82-83 83-84 



Dispositions of estate cases exceeded filings for the first 
time in a decade during the 1 983-84 fiscal year. As a result, 
the volume of pending estate cases at the year end 
decreased in comparison to the number pending at the 



beginning of this year. Special proceedings filings de- 
creased 3.7% and dispositions decreased by 9.49i during 
the 1983-84 year. 



100 



CASELOAD TRENDS OF CRIMINAL CASES IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

1974-1983-84 



T 
H 
O 
U 

s 

A 
N 
D 

S 



() 
F 



C 

A 

S 
E 

S 



60 



40 



20 



L 




Filings 



/ Dispositions 



.♦ • 



Ending Pending 



"" I 1 I I ~~ I | I I I 

74 75 76 77 78 78-79 79-80 80-81 81-82 82-83 83-84 



Criminal superior case filings decreased by 3.6% and determined primarily by felony cases, since felony cases 

dispositions declined by 7.1% during the 1983-84 fiscal substantially outnumber misdemeanor appeal cases. 

year. The criminal caseload trend in superior court is 



101 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1983 — June 30, 1984 



Felonies 



Misdemeanors 



District 1 

Camden 

Chowan 

Currituck 

Dare 

Gates 

Pasquotank 

Perquimans 

District Totals 



Pending 

7 I 83 



5 
51 

9 
39 

4 
49 

6 

143 



Filed 

9 
73 
56 
69 
35 
166 
51 

459 



Total % Caseload Pending 

Caseload Disposed Disponed 6/30/84 



14 

104 
65 

108 
39 

215 
57 

602 



60 
57 
87 
25 
141 
28 

406 



57.1 
57.6 
87.6 
80.5 
64.1 
65.5 
49.1 

67.4 



6 

44 
8 
21 
14 
74 
29 

196 



Pending 

7/1/83 



38 
32 
31 

81 
11 

70 
22 

285 



Filed 

48 
223 
241 
273 

53 
558 
129 

1,525 



Total 
Caseload 

86 
255 
272 
354 

64 
628 
151 



% Caseload Pending 
Disposed Disposed 6/30/84 



55 
198 
233 
272 

41 
508 

93 

1,810 1,400 



63.9 
77.6 
85.6 
76.8 
64.0 
80.8 
61.5 

77.3 



31 
57 
39 
82 
23 
120 
58 

410 



District 2 

Beaufort 
Hyde 

Martin 
Tyrrel 1 
Washington 

District Totals 

District 3 

Carteret 
Craven 
Paml ico 
Pitt 

District Totals 

District 4 

Dupl in 
Jones 
Onslow 
Sampson 

District Totals 

District 5 

New Hanover 
Pender 

District Totals 

District 6 

Bertie 
Hal ifax 

Hertford 
Northampton 

District Totals 

District 7 

Edgecombe 

Nash 

Wilson 

District Totals 

District 8 

Greene 
Lenoir 

Wayne 

District Totals 

District 9 

Frankl in 

Granville 

Person 

District Totals 



14S 


467 


605 


374 


61.8 


231 


52 


69 


121 


97 


80.1 


24 


34 


154 


188 


144 


76.5 


44 





38 


38 


30 


78.9 


8 


20 


90 


110 


75 


68.1 


35 


254 


808 


1,062 


720 


67.7 


342 


5 3 


29 3 


346 


220 


63.5 


126 


75 


509 


584 


440 


75.3 


144 


18 


23 


41 


32 


78.0 


9 


185 


691 


876 


588 


67.1 


288 



331 



520 



183 



224 



258 



1,516 



1,692 



682 



879 



1,015 



1,847 1,280 



2,212 1,968 



865 



661 



1,103 



932 



1,223 



997 



69.3 



$.9 



76.4 



56 


300 


',56 


303 


85.1 


75 


288 


363 


325 


89.5 


93 


291 


384 


304 


79.1 



84.4 



81.5 



567 



80 


395 


4 76 


391 


82.3 


84 


9 


78 


87 


85 


97.7 


2 


337 


840 


1,177 


1,037 


88.1 


140 


94 


379 


473 


455 


96.1 


18 



244 



323 


1,836 


2,159 


1,826 


84.5 


333 


22 


84 


106 


89 


83.9 


17 


34 5 


1,920 


2,265 


1,915 


84.5 


350 


25 


87 


112 


95 


84.8 


17 


103 


114 


417 


315 


75.5 


102 


29 


193 


222 


182 


81.9 


40 


26 


88 


114 


69 


60.5 


45 



204 



53 
38 
80 

171 



15 


136 


155 


92 


59.3 


63 


59 


367 


426 


359 


84.2 


67 


30 


512 


642 


646 


85.0 


96 



226 



48 


194 


242 


142 


58.6 


100 


85 


311 


391 


252 


64.4 


139 


44 


24 2 


286 


219 


76.5 


67 


111 


32 6 


436 


321 


73.6 


115 


46 


68 


114 


76 


66.6 


38 



97 
33 
13 
23 
17 

183 



14 

36 

9 

119 

178 



6 



32 

9 

47 



80 



156 



166 



233 
35 
63 

45 
50 

426 



82 

294 

26 

540 

942 



38 

6 

105 

39 

188 



698 



396 



561 



330 
63 

76 
68 
67 

609 



96 
330 

35 
659 

1,120 



44 

6 

137 

48 

235 



235 
60 

35 
63 
46 

439 



77 

281 

24 

514 

896 



36 
5 

99 
47 

187 



778 



655 



552 



414 



717 



610 



71.2 

88.2 
46.0 
92.6 
68.6 

72.0 



80.2 
85.1 
68.5 
77.9 



1.0 



81.8 
83.3 
72.2 
97.9 

79.5 



75.0 



85.0 



95 
8 

41 

5 

21 

170 



19 

49 

11 

145 

224 



1 
38 

1 

48 



59 


643 


702 


591 


34.1 


111 


21 


55 


76 


64 


84.2 


12 



123 



20 


53 


73 


53 


72.6 


20 


104 


205 


309 


241 


77.9 


68 


15 


90 


106 


80 


76.1 


25 


17 


48 


65 


40 


61.5 


25 



138 



33 


220 


253 


212 


83.7 


41 


77 


132 


259 


232 


89.5 


27 


46 


169 


205 


166 


80.9 


39 



107 



8 


75 


83 


55 


66.2 


28 


93 


441 


534 


439 


82.2 


95 


91 


368 


459 


364 


79.3 


95 


92 


884 


1,076 


858 


79.7 


218 


82 


220 


302 


197 


65.2 


105 


73 


152 


225 


151 


67.1 


74 


49 


241 


290 


176 


60.6 


114 


82 


197 


279 


206 


73.8 


73 


62 


99 


161 


105 


65.2 


56 



329 



1,140 



1,469 1,010 



68.7 



459 



348 



909 



1,257 



835 



66.4 



422 



102 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1983 — June 30, 1984 



Felonies 



Misdemeanors 



District 10 
Wake 

District 11 

Harnett 

Johnston 

Lee 

District Totals 

District 12 

Cumberland 
Hoke 

District Totals 

District 13 

Bladen 
Brunswi ck 
Columbus 

District Totals 
District 14 



Durham 




District 


15A 


Alamance 




District 


15B 



Chatham 
Orange 

District Totals 

District 16 

Robeson 
Scotland 

District Totals 

District 17A 

Caswel 1 
Rockingham 

District Totals 

District 17B 

Stokes 
Surry 

District Totals 

District 18 
Guilford 

Greensboro 
High Point 

District Totals 

District 19A 

Cabarrus 
Rowan 

District Totals 

District 19B 

Montgomery 
Randol ph 

District Totals 



Pending 

7/1/83 



29 
54 

151 



487 



1 

167 



69 
136 

205 



916 
261 

1,177 



273 

127 

400 



82 

348 

430 



Filed 



1,600 3,C 



229 
358 

354 

941 



1,139 



117 
664 

781 



172 
409 

581 



2,410 
802 

3,212 



563 
536 

1,099 



303 
507 

810 



Total % Caseload Pending 

Caseload Disposed Disposed 6/30/84 



4,689 3,240 



297 
387 
408 

1,092 



267 
297 
303 

867 



1,626 1,321 



118 
831 

949 



241 
545 

786 



3,326 
1,063 



117 
693 

810 



223 
418 

641 



2,432 
634 



4,389 3,066 



836 
663 



621 
532 



1,499 1,153 



385 
855 

1,240 



165 
531 

696 



69.0 



76.7 

74.2 

79.3 



81.2 



99.1 
83.3 

85.3 



92.5 

76.6 

81.5 



74.2 

80.2 

76.9 



42.8 
62.1 

56.1 



1,449 



30 

90 

105 

225 



457 


1,435 


1,892 


1,405 


74.2 


487 


10 


68 


78 


71 


91.0 


7 


467 


1,503 


1,970 


1,476 


74.9 


494 


68 


188 


256 


157 


61.3 


99 


152 


159 


311 


205 


65.9 


106 


170 


324 


494 


453 


91.7 


41 


390 


671 


1,061 


815 


76.8 


246 


527 


1,563 


2,090 


1,492 


71.3 


598 


270 


971 


1,241 


782 


63.0 


459 


14 


134 


148 


95 


64.1 


53 


47 


489 


536 


446 


83.2 


90 


61 


623 


684 


541 


79.0 


143 


332 


910 


1,242 


1,065 


85.7 


177 


155 


229 


384 


256 


66.6 


128 



305 



1 
138 

139 



18 
127 

145 



73.1 894 
59.6 429 

69.8 1,323 



215 
131 

346 



220 
324 

544 



Pending 

7/1/83 

667 



12 
30 
20 

62 



132 

10 

142 



56 

52 

116 

224 



138 



120 



3 

14 

17 



154 
167 

321 



7 
177 



179 
73 

252 



293 
119 

412 



116 
270 

386 



Filed 

1,994 



101 
149 
255 

505 



551 
63 

614 



93 
284 

463 



548 



341 



28 



530 
245 

775 



115 
581 

696 



46 


160 


108 


460 


154 


620 



651 
195 

846 



607 
562 

1,169 



263 



1,091 



Total % Caseload Pending 

Caseload Disposed Disposed 6/30/84 



2,661 1,854 



113 

179 
275 

567 



756 



687 



461 



31 
94 

125 



1,096 



774 



830 
268 

1,098 



900 
681 



104 
144 
213 

461 



606 



561 



366 



22 

77 

99 



791 



646 



614 
130 

744 



628 
549 



1,581 1,177 

379 288 

1,098 717 

1,477 1,005 



69.6 



92.0 
80.4 

77.4 

81.3 



142 


109 


76.7 


145 


100 


68.9 


400 


352 


88.0 



51.6 



69.9 



79.3 



70.9 
81.9 

79.2 



72.1 



83.4 



73.9 
48.5 

67.7 



69.7 
80.6 

74.4 



75.9 

65.3 

68.0 



807 



9 
35 
62 

106 



683 


545 


79.7 


138 


73 


61 


83.5 


12 



151 1 



33 

45 
48 

126 



206 



95 



9 
17 

26 



684 


538 


78.6 


146 


412 


253 


61.4 


159 



305 



122 


118 


96.7 


4 


758 


650 


85.7 


108 


880 


768 


87.2 


112 


206 


16/ 


76.2 


49 


568 


489 


86.0 


79 



128 



2 1 6 
138 

354 



272 
132 

404 



91 
381 

472 



103 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1983- June 30, 1984 









Felonies 










Misdemeanors 








Pending 




Total 




% Caseload 


Pending 


Pending 




Total 




% Caseload 


Pending 


District 20 


" 1 83 


Filed 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/84 


7/1/83 


Filed 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/84 


: - j a n 


16: 


127 


:s9 


225 


77.8 


64 


43 


306 


349 


205 


58.7 


144 


Moore 


101 


435 


53b 


476 


88.8 


60 


86 


305 


391 


329 


84.1 


62 


Richmond 


« 


605 


664 


468 


70.4 


196 


84 


368 


452 


392 


86.7 


60 


Stanly 


J4 


357 


451 


390 


86.4 


61 


104 


227 


331 


275 


83.0 


56 


Union 


34 


4S3 


517 


346 


66.9 


171 


50 


495 


545 


442 


81.1 


103 



District Totals 

District 21 
Forsyth 

District 22 

Alexander 
Davidson 
Davie 
Iredell 

District Totals 



450 2,007 



525 2,094 



169 
10 

14 3 

3 7n 



80 
218 

51 
586 

735 



2,457 1,905 



2,619 2,188 



387 

61 

529 

1,065 



60 

287 

42 

370 

759 



77.5 



83.5 



68.1 
74.1 
68.8 
69.9 

71.2 



552 



431 



28 
100 

19 
159 

506 



367 



500 



19 

114 

23 

102 

258 



1,701 



1,890 



108 
388 
124 
363 

983 



2,068 1,643 



2,390 2,179 



127 
502 

147 
465 



114 
419 
112 

370 



1,241 1,015 



79.4 



91.1 



89.7 
83.4 
76.1 
79.5 

81.7 



425 



211 



13 
83 

35 
95 

226 



District 23 



Al leghany 


7 


76 


83 


27 


32.5 


56 


7 


18 


25 


17 


68.0 


8 


Ashe 


32 


47 


79 


41 


51.8 


38 


39 


59 


98 


47 


47.9 


51 


Wilkes 


57 


177 


234 


163 


69.6 


71 


119 


349 


468 


320 


68.3 


148 


Yadkin 


3: 


149 


181 


95 


52.4 


86 


46 


184 


230 


175 


76.0 


55 


District Totals 


128 


4 4 a 


577 


326 


56.4 


251 


211 


610 


821 


559 


68.0 


262 


District 24 


























Avery 


53 


62 


115 


77 


66.9 


38 


7 


20 


27 


19 


70.3 


8 


Madison 


41 


93 


1 34 


83 


61.9 


51 


10 


12 


22 


10 


45.4 


12 


Mitchell 


29 


41 


7!! 


43 


61.4 


27 


3 


12 


15 


11 


73.3 


4 


Watauga 


38 


345 


3;-; 3 


203 


53.0 


1BU 


4 


38 


42 


33 


78.5 


9 


Yancey 


4 


51 


V 


16 


29.0 


39 


11 


37 


48 


20 


41.6 


28 


District Totals 


165 


592 


757 


422 


55.7 


335 


35 


119 


154 


93 


60.3 


61 


District 25 



























Burke 

Caldwell 

Catawba 

District Totals 

District 26 
Mecklenburg 

District 27A 
Gaston 

District 27B 

Cleveland 
Lincoln 

District Totals 

District 28 
Buncomoe 

District 29 

Henderson 

Mc Dowel 1 
Polk 

Rutherford 
Transylvania 

District Totals 



242 


301 


54 3 


4 74 


79.9 


109 


163 


501 


61,4 


488 


73.4 


176 


251 


04 3 


844 


638 


75.5 


206 


65( 


1,395 


2,051 


1,560 


76.0 


491 


311 


2,873 


4,184 


2,915 


69.6 


1,269 


278 


1,020 


1,298 


1,057 


81.4 


241 


68 


4 1 3 


481 


354 


73.5 


127 


41 


268 


309 


270 


87.3 


39 



109 



303 



681 



1,047 



7')<) 



624 



1,350 1,016 



78.9 



75.2 



166 



334 



B2 


652 


634 


44 3 


69.8 


L91 


' 1 


183 


744 


710 


86.0 


34 


42 


4 7 


84 


65 


77.3 


19 


74 7, 


410 


650 


-,'// 


81.0 


123 


35 


117 


14/ 


104 


70.7 


43 



91 


289 


380 


264 


69.4 


116 


45 


215 


260 


194 


74.6 


66 


132 


427 


559 


432 


77.2 


127 



268 



367' 



128 



34 
18 

52 



79 



931 



952 



576 



259 
132 

391 



il6 



1,199 



1,304 



704 



293 
150 

443 



i')6 



890 



515 



204 
90 

294 



308 



74.2 



67.7 



73.1 



69.6 
60.0 

66.3 



77.9 



309 



420 



60 

149 

87 



29 


168 


197 


114 


57.8 


87 


16 


137 


153 


171 


79.0 


32 


25 


14 


39 


28 


71.7 


11 


72 


262 


334 


258 


77.2 


76 


14 


69 


83 


6? 


74.6 


21 



4 66 



1,299 



1,759 1,349 



76.6 



410 



166 



650 



806 



583 



72.3 



223 



104 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1983 — June 30, 1984 











Felonies 










Misdemeanors 








Pending 




Total 




% Caseload 


Pending 


Pending 




Total 




% Caseload 


Pending 






7/1/83 


Filed 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/84 


7/1/83 


Filed 


Caseload 


Disposed 


Disposed 


6/30/84 


District 


30 


























Cherokee 




49 


% 


145 


85 


58.6 


60 


38 


111 


149 


119 


79.8 


30 


Clay 




8 


2 


10 


10 


100.0 





10 


30 


40 


28 


70.0 


12 


Graham 




28 


40 


68 


38 


55.8 


30 


13 


15 


28 


16 


57.1 


1? 


Haywood 




159 


44 4 


608 


386 


63.4 


222 


95 


224 


319 


190 


59.5 


129 


Jackson 




69 


118 


187 


117 


62.5 


70 


30 


55 


85 


68 


80.0 


17 


Macon 




33 


119 


152 


112 


73.6 


40 


24 


33 


57 


40 


70.1 


1/ 


Swain 




7 


50 


57 


40 


70.1 


17 


23 


30 


53 


35 


66.0 


18 


District 


Totals 


353 


874 


1,227 


788 


64.2 


439 


233 


498 


731 


496 


67.8 


235 


State Tot 


als 


13,938 


42,160 


56,098 


41,698 


74.3 


14,400 


7,343 


25,916 


33,259 


25,311 


76.1 


7,948 



105 



METHODS OF DISPOSITION OF SUPERIOR COURT CRIMINAL CASES 

1983-1984 



GUILTY PLEA 



GUILTY PLEA 



FELONIES 



OTHER 




DISMISSALS 



NOT GUILTY PLEA 



MISDEMEANOR APPEALS 



OTHER 




DISMISSALS 



NOT GUILTY PLEA 



Guilt) pleas constitute the largest disposition category for graphed here, includes speedy trial dismissals by the dis- 
criminal superior court cases. The dismissal category, as trict attorney, both with and without leave. 



106 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CRIMINAL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1983 — June 30, 1984 









Felo 


nies 










Misdemeanors 










Plea of 


Plea of 




Speedy 






Plea of 


Plea of 




Speedy 






Total 


Guilty 


Not Guilty 


Dismissal 


Trial 




Total 


Guilty 


Not Guilty 


Dismissal 


Trial 






Dispositions 


(Judge) 


(Jury) 


by D.A. 


Dismissal 


Other 


Dispositions 


(Judge) 


(Jury) 


by D.A. 


Dismissal 


Other 


District 1 


























Camden 





2 


2 


3 





1 


55 


38 


1 


12 





4 


Chowan 


60 


30 


4 


23 





3 


198 


80 


7 


11 





100 


Currituck 


57 


34 


4 


10 





9 


233 


199 


7 


26 





1 


Dare 


87 


36 


2 


45 





4 


272 


228 


6 


36 





2 


Gates 


25 


17 


2 


3 





3 


41 


20 


3 


3 





15 


Pasquotank 


141 


104 


14 


15 





8 


508 


172 


5 


41 





290 


Perquimans 


28 


10 


3 


10 





5 


93 


36 


3 


12 





42 


District Totals 


406 


233 


31 


109 





33 


1,400 


773 


32 


141 





454 


District 2 


























Beaufort 


374 


235 


76 


40 


2 


21 


235 


154 


17 


26 


1 


37 


Hyde 


97 


42 


10 


13 





32 


60 


25 


8 


10 





17 


Martin 


144 


92 


25 


15 





12 


35 


13 


7 


7 





8 


Tyrrell 


30 


16 


4 


6 





4 


63 


21 


13 


12 





17 


Washington 


75 


33 


19 


12 





11 


46 


14 


3 


5 





24 


District Totals 


720 


418 


134 


86 


2 


80 


439 


227 


48 


60 


1 


103 


District 3 


























Carteret 


220 


110 


7 


98 





5 


77 


41 


1 


23 





12 


Craven 


440 


245 


16 


169 





10 


281 


127 


21 


94 





39 


Paml ico 


32 


17 


5 


7 





3 


24 


13 





3 





8 


Pitt 


588 


388 


41 


122 





37 


514 


286 


42 


96 





90 


District Totals 


1,280 


760 


69 


396 





55 


896 


467 


64 


216 





149 


District 4 


























Dupl in 


391 


251 


32 


92 





16 


36 


11 


5 


5 





15 


Jones 


85 


14 


23 


48 








5 


2 


1 


2 








Onslow 


1,037 


614 


50 


348 





25 


99 


33 


19 


27 





20 


Sampson 


455 


297 


34 


110 





14 


47 


32 


4 


5 





6 


District Totals 


1,968 


1,176 


139 


598 





55 


187 


78 


29 


39 





41 


District 5 


























New Hanover 


1,826 


1,192 


95 


484 





55 


591 


339 


29 


115 





108 


Pender 


89 


51 


2 


21 





15 


64 


18 


3 


19 





24 


District Totals 


1,915 


1,243 


97 


505 





70 


655 


357 


32 


134 





132 


District 6 


























Bertie 


95 


55 


6 


18 





16 


53 


28 


7 


9 





9 


Hal ifax 


315 


141 


25 


135 





14 


241 


107 


15 


76 





43 


Hertford 


182 


112 


15 


42 





13 


80 


40 


7 


21 





12 


Northampton 


69 


23 


14 


22 





10 


40 


11 


5 


7 





17 


District Totals 


661 


331 


60 


217 





53 


414 


186 


34 


113 





81 


District 7 


























Edgecombe 


303 


163 


15 


123 





2 


212 


86 


13 


77 





36 


Nash 


325 


157 


11 


138 





19 


232 


98 


15 


72 





47 


Wilson 


304 


186 


15 


70 





33 


166 


91 


7 


37 





31 


District Totals 


932 


506 


41 


331 





54 


610 


275 


35 


186 





114 


District 8 


























Greene 


92 


80 


4 


5 





3 


55 


24 


5 


13 





13 


Lenoir 


359 


180 


38 


122 





19 


439 


225 


24 


105 





85 


Wayne 


546 


287 


54 


187 





18 


364 


202 


26 


86 





50 


District Totals 


997 


547 


96 


314 





40 


858 


451 


55 


204 





148 



107 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CRIMINAL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1983 — June 30, 1984 









Fell 


jnies 










Misdemeanors 






District 9 


Total 
Dispositions 


Plea of 
Guilty 
(Judge) 


Plea of 

Not Guilty 

(Jury) 


Dismissal 
by D.A. 


Speedy 

Trial 

Dismissal 


Other 


Total 
Dispositions 


Plea of 
Guilty 
(Judge) 


Plea of 

Not Guilty 

(Jury) 


Dismissal 
by D.A. 


Speedy 

Trial 

Dismissal 


Other 


Frankl in 
Granville 

Vance 
Warren 


142 

252 

219 

321 

76 


69 

168 

60 

004 

41 


4 

6 

16 

5 
6 


63 
54 

86 
SO 
27 











7 
24 
57 
12 

2 


197 

151 
176 
206 
105 


95 

68 

76 

102 

53 


5 
7 
8 
6 
2 


76 

37 
43 
61 
21 










21 
39 
49 
37 
29 


District Totals 


1,010 


5(30 


37 


309 





102 


835 


394 


28 


238 





175 


District 10 


























.,;-e 


3,240 


1,624 


130 


1,365 


6 


lib 


1,854 


532 


24 


767 


20 


511 


District 11 


























Harnett 
Johnston 

Lee 


267 
297 

303 


182 

176 
212 


37 

20 

3 


51 

41 

8 b 








7 

10 

3 


104 
144 
213 


52 
48 
78 


9 
8 

4 


24 
28 

66 







19 
60 
65 


District Totals 


867 


570 


50 


327 





20 


461 


178 


21 


118 





144 


District 12 


























Cumberland 
Hoke 


1,405 
71 


'J 5 7 
48 


96 
2 


300 
13 






52 
8 


545 
61 


234 
26 


43 

10 


69 

14 







190 
11 


District Totals 


1,476 


1,005 


98 


313 





60 


606 


260 


53 


83 





210 


District 13 

Bladen 

Brunswick 
Columbus 

District Totals 


157 
205 
453 

815 


95 
107 

084 

486 


13 
18 

43 

78 


43 

57 

102 

202 









4 
2 3 
22 

49 


100 
100 

3 32 

561 


38 
43 

137 

218 


8 

9 

17 

34 


38 
34 
87 

159 




2 

2 


25 

14 

109 

148 


District 14 
Durham 


1,492 


:33 b 


% 


497 





44 


480 


215 


34 


150 





81 


District 15A 
Alamance 


782 


481 


74 


213 





14 


366 


186 


40 


85 





55 


District 15B 

Chatham 
Orange 

District Totals 


35 
446 

54 1 


55 
240 

295 


5 
12 

17 


23 
167 

190 








12 
27 

39 


22 
77 

99 


9 
26 

35 


1 
7 

8 


7 
19 

26 









5 

25 

30 


District 16 

Robeson 
Scotland 

District Totals 


1,065 
256 

1,321 


313 
211 

1,026 


106 

13 

125 


59 
16 

75 








85 
10 

95 


538 
253 

791 


255 
165 

420 


29 
6 

35 


26 
37 

63 


12 



12 


216 

45 

261 


District 17A 

Caswell 

Pockingham 

District Totals 


117 
693 

B10 


105 
531 

636 


3 

23 

25 


5 
115 

120 









4 

33 

29 


118 
650 

768 


95 

379 

474 


2 
16 

18 


9 
89 

08 








12 
166 

178 


District 17B 
Stokes 

District Totals 


223 

418 

641 


198 
!41 

539 




34 

24 


19 

45 

64 









6 
8 

14 


157 

489 

646 


128 
323 

451 



6 

6 


15 
39 

54 








14 
121 

135 


District 13 
Guilford 

Greensboro 
High ' 

- ct Totals 


2,432 
634 

3,066 


1,684 
401 

2,085 


82 

12 

94 


555 

300 

755 








111 
21 

132 


614 
130 

744 


276 
42 

318 


6 
2 

8 


136 
48 

184 









196 
38 

234 



108 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CRIMINAL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

July 1, 1983 — June 30, 1984 









Felonies 










Misdemeanors 






District 19A 


Total 
Dispositions 


Plea of 
Guilty 
(Judge) 


Plea of 

Not Guilty 

(Jury) 


Dismissal 
by DA. 


Speedy 

Trial 

Dismissal 


Other 


Total 
Dispositions 


Plea of 
Guilty 
(Judge) 


Plea of 

Not Guilty 

(Jury) 


Dismissal 
by D.A. 


Speedy 

Trial 

Dismissal 


Other 


Cabarrus 
Rowan 


621 
532 


368 

339 


16 
27 


224 

144 







13 

22 


628 

549 


424 
242 


9 

34 


132 

124 






63 

149 


District Totals 


1,153 


707 


43 


368 





35 


1,177 


666 


43 


256 





212 


District 19B 


























Montgomery 
Randol ph 


165 
531 


63 
370 


9 
4 


60 
144 







33 
13 


288 
717 


140 
421 


7 

11 


87 
96 






54 
189 


District Totals 


696 


433 


13 


204 





46 


1,005 


561 


18 


183 





243 


District 20 


























Anson 

Moore 

Richmond 

Stanly 

Union 


225 
476 
468 

390 
346 


86 
245 
222 
172 
176 


3 
9 
8 

15 
19 


125 

212 
230 
183 
141 









11 

10 
8 

20 
10 


205 
329 
392 
275 

442 


84 

110 
144 
174 
153 


6 

12 
6 


17 


89 
90 
166 
76 
92 











26 

117 

76 

25 

180 



District Totals 

District 21 
Forsyth 

District 22 



Alexander 




Davidson 




Davie 




Iredell 




District 


Totals 


District 


23 


Alleghany 




Ashe 




Wilkes 




Yadkin 




District 


Totals 


District ; 


24 


Avery 




Madison 




Mitchell 




Watauga 




Yancey 




District 


Totals 


District ; 


25 


Burke 




Caldwell 




Catawba 





District Totals 

District 26 
Mecklenburg 

District 27A 
Gaston 

District 27B 

Cleveland 
Lincoln 

District Totals 



1,905 



759 



326 



422 



901 



2,188 1,725 



60 


45 


287 


182 


42 


23 


370 


188 



438 



27 


15 


41 


21 


163 


104 


95 


71 



211 



77 


53 


83 


29 


43 


17 


203 


109 


16 


9 



217 



54 



81 



21 



38 



329 



2 


9 





24 


52 





8 


5 





16 


132 





50 


193 





3 


3 





6 


11 





10 


29 





2 


9 






52 



7 


13 





17 


34 





4 


22 





10 


79 








5 






153 



434 


204 


19 


185 


488 


219 


14 


226 


638 


330 


48 


233 


1,560 


753 


31 


644 


2,915 


1,389 


210 


1,216 


1,057 


565 


68 


372 


354 


177 


23 


143 


270 


59 


9 


191 



24 



624 



236 



32 



334 



59 



53 



4 

29 

6 

34 

73 



6 

3 

20 

13 

42 



4 
3 

5 
2 

14 



25 
29 
22 

76 



76 



49 



11 
11 

22 



1,643 



2,179 



114 
419 
112 
370 

1,015 



17 

47 

320 

175 

559 



19 
10 
11 
33 

20 

93 



264 
194 
432 

890 



515 



204 
90 

294 



665 



1,312 



317 



259 



26 



301 



283 



234 



101 
30 

131 



41 



44 



46 


4 


94 


10 


43 


9 


134 


15 



18 



6 


4 


22 


3 


129 


23 


102 


5 



35 



10 


2 


6 





4 


4 


5 


2 


1 


8 



16 



96 


14 


82 


13 


123 


42 



69 



58 



46 



7 
3 

10 



513 



340 



222 



17 



212 



335 



152 



49 
24 

73 



424 



'183 



20 





44 


87 





228 


28 





32 


87 





134 



438 



4 





3 


5 





17 


44 





124 


15 





53 



197 



2 





5 


3 





1 


2 





1 


6 





20 


4 





7 



34 



79 


1 


74 


47 





52 


86 


5 


176 



302 



208 



83 



47 

33 



109 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CRIMINAL CASES 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURTS 

Julv 1. 1983 — June 30, 1984 



Felonies 



Misdemeanors 



District 28 


Buncombe 
District 29 


Henderson 
McDowel 1 
Polk 

Rutherford 
Transylvania 

District Totals 
District 30 


Cherokee 

Clay 

Graham 

Haywood 

Jackson 

Macon 

Swain 

District Totals 
State Totals 



Plea of 

Tolal Guilty 

Dispositions (Judge) 



1,016 



1,349 



Plea of 
Not Guilt) Dismissal 
(Jury) by D.A. 



734 



443 


303 


:i 


147 


65 


45 


:V" 


334 


T'4 


n 



9 )0 



54 



49 



199 



316 



788 403 70 214 
41,698 24,990 2,379 12,376 



Speedy 
Trial 
Dismissal Other 



29 



20 


Qq 





8 


44 


n 





18 





18 


135 





3 


20 






85 


49 


5 


27 





1 


6 





2 





38 


11 





17 





381 


194 


55 


111 





117 


65 


1 


10 





112 


60 


) 


25 





40 


L8 





2? 






41 



21 

11 

2 

40 

10 



4 

2 
10 
26 
4 1 
18 



101 
1,912 



Plea of 

Total Guilty 

Dispositions (Judge) 



308 



114 

121 

28 

258 
62 

583 



111 
28 
16 

190 
68 
40 
35 

496 



117 



298 



Plea of 
Not Guilty Dismissal 
(Jury) by D.A. 



16 



63 


7 


79 


10 


17 





03 


9 


36 


5 



31 



Speedy 
Trial 
Dismissal Other 



107 



26 





18 


11 





21 


7 





4 


43 





103 


12 





9 



99 



155 



52 


1 


59 





7 


22 


3 


2 





1 


2 


2 


6 





6 


129 


10 


48 





3 


40 


1 


13 





14 


19 


4 


6 





11 


15 


2 


13 





5 


279 


23 


147 





47 


944 


1,126 


5,803 


41 


6,397 






cocMCAJOCMinojoCMO*-0 I — 00 



r-H r- 1 r-H ■— 4 "^ CO 



HIDOOSMIDID 



in 




o 

o. 




H 




e 


« 




a 




l=> 




09 


c< 


O 




U 




u 







o 


« 




O 

if! 


VO 


o 




ox 




►-* 








oe; 






O 
NO 


w 






O 


Ph 


i 

CI 






p 


00 

ON 




c 


C/3 


b. 






w 






■it 


EC 


> 






H 


91 




s& 


Z 


u 

in 
II, 




s< 




0X1 




■a 


cr 


c 




15 X 


to 


3 

n 




— o 

O Q. 
H .52 

Q 


< 


"O 






U 


0) 

I/) 






rri 


o 

Cl 







cioinwHOwONOinMOH en >* 

C\J -— t <— I ,-H r- 1 r-l r-H r-H CO r— I LOO 



■—I CM 1— I "=T CM CM 



OCDr- ICTlCOt— l CO ■* O0 I — LDNLTirO LOOl 
r- 1 r- 1 * i— IN^-N in * CO COCTi 



<\jmLDCJWOCvlCOfOKHD^-LOrH l£> lO 

— IRJi- < CM CO C\J CO r- 1 * O •— " * COLT) 

r-H r-H i— I CO >—i I — 



OOOmOOOOOOOOOO oo 

H^j-oiDHNtXJOOCO'^^COLn en <* 

* t— tcn^-r^-rj-coiocncocn^inin co in 

CM r-H t— I 



LnonNLOoO'^frv\£)<^-cTiLDLno CM id 



LDLniHLONCvJOCTl 
CTt LO CM r-H CM f-H 



ocoiom*cocMcocnin h vo 

i-HI-^r— < CO r-H <-H t-H t-H r-l CTl CM 



OOOOOOOOOO OO 



iH^-HCncDCOOLnLnro i-h en 

OIOIOCOOOIDWNI — OO 



CncMC0*-OCMO*Lnin r-H r-H 



CO in o co i — co r^ cm in r-H .— i co co co 10 o 

LOLDOtLnnCONCXJ'd-^OtMCTl oo 
.— I CM CM rtl/1 «* ■* 



^tLONO^-LnofOLnic o en 
NmcniD^mmkDN^t cm co 
co cm .— i r^ * 



lO O CM «— I <t LO lo r~ r-^ 
* i— i low h^ 



CTlr-H>*CO^l-COC0lO LOCO 

i— i r~- cm <j- m ^-in 



C0<*CMCOlOlO00in * 00 

ID CM CO CO CMCM COCO 

i— I t— ( t— I CO CM 



HO^OT^Olr- 1 CM O ■* 
0"f*lDH COCO en * 
<—i r-H r-H CO CO LD LT) 



oooooinoo oo 



cocoon 



ONOTHCvj<t00tt OlD 
MN^COmwWrH CO Cn 
CXI ■* CM LD LO CM 00 



(MOM — OO'*'* 



i co co r-~ o cm 



© 

< 

s 

w 
Q 

t/3 





z 

< 



4. 

< 

■a 
c 
« 

00 

o 

^o 

ex 

■3 

c 



a. 

0i) 

< 



£ u 

z 

© 

w 

O 

w 



o j, 



<A — 



s 2 



•a m 



2 = 

H 4) 

a. 



* CM 



r^ cm 
* co 



cm co co cm •— imoOHO cm in 

CM i—l * ■— I 



rHLO*COOCO*CBLOlHCMOtHLD 



--HCMLOCOCMrHOQDlDLD^aiCMOl 



wujinoioooiO'HCOHitrtio 



>incOLnuouncOLnt— iid^ Oin id cm cm 
cm .— i.— ico hcohh ma) 



inoooooOLnoiooooo oo 

iOi— nO'i-^or^oiLnoiDmtr- 1 co* 

oooi — cMoo*o-i*ojcocMLnr^ ini^ 

CMCMCO HHCM i— I i— I 



O'tinio^'LON^'CMO^anoiD in-* 

ro h in in o cti r- icmcooctiCOi-ho ■** 

or^-CMcoinooOi— icin>j oicon iocm 

CO<— ICO^H i— it— I i— < CM <— 1 CO .—1 CM -— 1 



int— i*f^coo->i— icm*-co"*octico mo 

CO*-Ln fOMCOHCMNCMCvJin CTt^H 

-H ^H * 



>— i LlJ i— I LU i— • LlI« 



M-COlOOlDOl *"*- 
i — i - — i CO ■* 



icOLncor-^CM*-coi_n 



oooooooooo om 



t— i o in i — NODcoorsQi 
niocMin*oco^-rt o> 



*-i — cocOi— iioio^rinin *o 

coi^MCTic\jiooiLnio* cor-^ 
intMCOioWiniCNrt o inco 

r— I r-H CO CM ^H r-H,— (,— |r-l 



t— iLn*oo*-f— iooin inn cmo 
cocticm ■** cocM^j-r^. 



inco*-cocMcoioco 
co in cm o * 



ooinooooo oo 



CMC0in<*m>-HCTio mm 
cocococMCOr-^r^cM r-i^ 



coiD*mr^OMn* oo 






iDcn>t CTicnr- icoin i — * 

CM'-l*-*' iHCOt lOCM 

^H .— 1 CM r-H Ln CM 



MHJWljJl 



•r- (U -r- 



11 



(^c^ccoocmo no 



ro LO m en 



o <t "3- r-i m m r-~ oo 



Cc\j-<onwOrt q-u-i 



X. 




'c 




















H 




=. 




3C 
















a 




2 






m 


-n 


^~ 


CM 


CO r-. 


ro o 


CM r3- 


p 




■ 




rj 






ID 




~ 




00 —i 


o 




s 




















u 




EJ 




O 


























CTl 


** 


CM 




r-~ i — 


*3- en 


CM •— 1 


cs 




c 




_ 


ID 




i — < 




r^ c\j 


CM 


00 -3- 




E 

< 




>C 










CSJ 


■— ' 


^3" 


c 






















H 
























DS 








a 


00 


in 


CSJ 


CVJ 


•-< ro 


*D r — 


i — r- 


W 


T 






e 


oo 


CM 


r— | 




>D <D 


CM oo 


CO CM 


3C 








cm 








in 


ro 




C- 


i 




















^ 


P 


3C 




c 


















X 






■3 


Bl 

< 


o 


If] 


a 


O 


o o 


O O 


o o 








2 


en 


00 r-». 


en 


00 r-H 


O ID 


CO en 


- 


u 






CM 


ro 


co 


~ 


in in 


no cm 


<a- <3- 


= 


> 






















H 


"s 




e 

s 


U 


0? 


c 


<* 


C 


ID IX) 


00 in 


en co 




u 




< 


r-. 


X 


on 




00 -h 


O 00 


r-« o 


Z 


s 




m 


US 


CSJ 


en 


i~^ id 


>3- ^J- 


ID ID 




sx 






■o 
















X 


= 






s 
















_ 








a 




IT 


in 


in 


r-. en 


in r- 


CO r-» 









c 


~ 


ro 


cr 




ro en 


in <^- 


ID CO 


t: 


3 




- 


n 


ro 








o 


<3- 


en ^h 


< 


"3 
V 























r~ •— i en cm ion 
in in cm ^h co *D 
*3- ^-i o- .—I 



o «3- en ro ctin 
en r- ro cm cm en 
i-< ro cm ro 



o o o o o o 



en co oo in 
«a- ^j- id .— i 



O *3- in ro *a- o 



iDHOnj in in 
cm en co id i— i in 
co in en id 



oooooooo oo 



enmro.— iroiDLnro en ■— < 



inroini— i cm o en o •— < *3- 

cnin>Hq-cocOio^- id ^h 

ro cm i—i id «3- 



ro ro o en in ■— i coro 
cniniDino^- inin 

<— * CM I— * 



roincMrooocn ro r-. 
cncMcnroocn cnin 
^h t— i .— i i— i i— i ^ ro 



OOOOOO OO 



"fa-minnco r~-c\j 



rOCMinCM^-lD CMO 

Ohmooid ro^H 
ro cnj ro cm ro i— i cn>D 



tfl 



s° 



Oj 


s 


C 




Z 


y 


< 


Si 


u 


< 


£ 


E 


- 


s 





3C 


Efl 


S 


VM 


f<) 


S 


o 




ii 


Q 


B 


z 


■a 


< 


V 


y^*s 


y 


-1 


y 


w 


a 


'- 












L> 


iff 


z 

c 


< 


- 




w 




- 




fc 




c 




X 




* 




r o 




< 





O J, 



.s — 



8 I 



OOOOOOOO OO 



OOt-iOCn^HOO Ort 



r~-CMOOCMCMOO (Ti'a' 



cocMOOroiDiDO r^co 



ro O O ■-( ro 



co ^a- o h co in 



oomoiD«— i^-^h incNj 



^3-^-ilOCnOCMOO 



i— i *—* ^ in cm ro i 



orvjoo^f'3-mroco 



•— • cm in cm in en 



OlDlDMCO lO >0-r3- 



CMro^-iDCNjcO COr- 



cn *j- i— i t-4 id en cm 
ro en eg •— i 



co in 
•3- ro 



-a « 



omoooooo oo 



iDOOO^h^h^ho cn^H 



o o o o o o 



oo ro ro — i r^ cm 



ro ■— i r>. cnj o ro 
ro hhh in cnj 
ro — i ro i— i 



OOOOOOOO mo 



o^inuncniDOO^H 
m^nNrH^i/iio 



rHCOl^rOrHNCOS COO 



CDOOCDOO OO 



.— tcn<xjr^*3-Ln cm o 

co rv «t IT) <d- c\j «3-C0 

OOWHlOr- 1 ^-l<3- 

NrHrtrHOJM CM^H 



— ai •— 



rrs O 

n- <*- 

I — i- 



112 



o o c\j in en id i-i . 



iniooir- nooooKti'i 



OO CM O CM I — CM CTi ID 



^1- r~- o o >jr-- 



H 

o 

« 
o 



B J, 

.2 "> 



Q 2 

o ^ 

£ * 

< 



incoinocort cocsj 



in co in cm «3- co >=tro 

cm cm *d- >— i Ln<* cmco 

t-H t— I t— I t-H ro CM 



OLf>ir)NCO^DNai(\j^D cmco 

i— in i — id r-. id t— i CO t— i ■— i in en 

t— i ro cm 



CM CO 
00 CM 

oo CO 



■3- r-~ 


CM CO 


ro cm 


ro ro 


i — i i — i 


ID CM 



in O 

«* r-. 
r-» •=a- 



r-. co r~- <a- co ^3- 



i — cr> id «d- t— i ro <^-kO 
ro CM (MH cow 



CM ID 


tOrHMV 


O CO 


■* t-H 


ID IT) 


r-~ in 



^J" O •— * C\J LO C\J 
CTt CO i— • «— l O CT^ 
^j- i-H |_T> t— t 



u S 



r-- cm i — o r~. o i— i cm 

<*h hm fl-w i— i in 

I— I CM CM f— I <zf ro 



cocMcncnincor--rocnoO coo 

roiDcrtCM^d-rocMLni— » • — i cmo 

I— i co CM 



co co 
t-H lo 
r-. r-. 



n ld in cMn n ro h 
m id r*- cr> n cm o en 
i — i t— i i— t t-H in cm 



ro co id co en i-h 
iv tt mm o oo 
«d- cm in CM 



P* OS 

C/J ~ 



' 1 w 



0X1 

c 



GO 

w 
u 



3 

Q 

■o 

(/I 

o 

a. 



•a m 
* < 



_T3 

2 S 
o a 
H .£ 

Q 



oooooo oo 



r-~ r-. ^i- cm cm co i-in 



c\j in cfi <^ id >j r~-co 

oiinin m rt id en in 

m «t inn en oo 



inooooooinino oo 



^ ID rH CTl O rH C\J OCT* 



cmi — w r-i en id ih id id in oin 
<jOMOiniHi — cm o r-~ o hd 
i— irHCjr- icM"— irorM i— i o co 



O "3- 

■3- in 
cm co 



oooooo oo 



o «3- co •— i in rn ins 



tOrtonon en co 

MSIOIOSS IDID 



r-. >=3- r-- *s- ro ro n .-h 

IDOOi^Or- I KO *£> 

cm t— i cm t— i ro cm C0"d- 



o o o o Oin 



r~~ en r-- in <a- r-~ 



m in i— * >— t 
O *d- f*» ID 

«d- in 



>n id 
r~- o 
■3- ID 



.-h o o o o —i .-i,-i 



tt 


08 


o 


<»■ 


z 




i/i 


< 


at 
on 


w 


< 


S 


■a 
c 


w 


08 


Q 


90 


c/3 


© 


^N 


ci 


S 


VO 




Oil 


a 


s 


z 


13 
C 


«< 




^•^ 


1/5 


j 


en 


w 


08 


to 


U 
o 


>« 


09 


o 


on 
< 


J 




w 




h 




h 




O 




en 




w 




o 




< 





O -1. 



e j, 



ID Ml — oi'd-MDq-oco roo 

i— I rO HHNH C0U3 



Nin * in o c) oi cvj id 



<* N hs CO I — IDi-Hi— )^J-CM COCTi 

i-H t-H i-Hr-Hf— I t— t^J-in 



ID ID 


ro cm 


**• t>« 


<3- CO 




ro .-h 



l < 



w — 



H 4) 



oooooo cim 



*d- in o i— it— in cmi — 



rocoi — in id in id co 

ID IM ID Cfi en en CM-— I 

CM CM 



fl-oi'JfflinoiDOMN 
iD>=a-i — rocMroincM 



oooooooooo oo 

oi — in rj id in «) o in n r^co 

^■iD^incomco-ioiin ido 

I— I r-H OO t— I ^H 



^-CMCTicrirorO'^J-CMr^cO inn 

OOCO-yr^.1— ir~0<*>=3-iD cr>r-» 

oioinioq-inomnci nn 

HHmHHH(\|HfOW cm— i 



OLncn<d-rv^-mmoDiD cticm 
oocor^tD^n— ii — m in incM 
H»HH —I -i =d-^- 



— IO0 lOO 100 I0O-JO0 



nOHOiom oio 



OO^-r- 1 CO CM CMOO 



o in cm cm in co i — 



ID i — I O CD ID i— I 



cm id i—i cm ro CO 



in o 
ro id 
ro cm 



—1 tt 


ro id 


rtfflinoDrt 


CM -3" 


CTi CM 


CM CM CM ID CM 


CM •— 1 


CM CM 





CTl P^ 
■=3- O 
>* CO 



oooooo oo 



ro «— i id CO i-H id r*-co 



ocnoinuncM in id 
ro CTi ro o id cm O 

t-H CM I— i 



D- s u- s: u- s: 



o o o o o o 



id in o co r-» >* 



r^ CO r~- cm ^a- o 
CO oo t— i en in 

■H^ — i rd- t— I 



01 +J 



I •!- C 



1- 


CIJ 


4-> 


c: 


1^1 


S- 




ro 


o 


in 



113 



— < o lo o r-. o 



o o CO !-< CO —i 



WrO^t rH IDT 

r-4 CO <CT 



CO cnj ld oo 


>3- lo 


CNJ CNJ O rH 


c\j ro 


lo lo r^ ld 


T CM 


CNJ ^-t 


CNJ rH 



E- 

C 
U 

C 



CO q- 
■a- lo 



lo cnj co T ro CO 



lo r-. n*-. lo r--. oj 


O LO 


lo cn 


ro lo 


lo *d- r- « LO 


r^ cn 


ro c\j lo «^t c\j r-* 


C\J «^j- 


r^ O 


ro ro 


CNJ <-H CM 


ro cnj 


■— * 


CNJ — I 


<3- CNJ 


ro >—* 


•— 1 


f— 4 



CO «^f i— t ^ O^ CO 

LO CO LO CNJ O O 



lo f— i h-. o ro t— i 
o en «^- lo lo <d- 

<Sf «—« <3" CNJ 



CO o ■— i ro en ro 
ro ro co «^r ■— i r- 



w S 



id cvj co o ih <j <=j- lo 
lo ro .— < cnj en lo r^-O 

r~- —I CNJ 



ro ro 


LO LO 


,-h ro r-~ r-~. 


co o 


LD CO CNJ O 


r-~ CO 


i— i i — i 


CO CNJ 


■*Hiru» 


ON LO 


cnj CO T r» 


CD LO 


■=f i-h 


1— ' 1— ' 


CNJ 


CNJ 


T •— 1 


«3" CNJ 



cnj ro CO lo o co 

Niomro r-t en 
<a- ■* ld va- 






OOOOOU-) oo 



± < 



o o o o oo 



o o o o o o 



o o o o o o 



oo rn cnj co oo lo 
co ■— i oo en co r^ 

COOMDOlO 


CO ^h 
cnj en 

rH IX) 


O i— i 

o o 
cnj lo 

1X5 CD 
CNJ •— 1 


CO lo 
CO CO 

r~. r — 

rH ON 
CNJ CTI 


CD LO i— I 1 — 

rv lo lo t 
cn cd r~, co 

OlOHLO 
CO ON r- LO 


CNJ CNJ 
LO LO 

ON ^T 

rj- ro 
r^ ld 


rH o ro on 
r^ CO lo ro 

oo i— i ro i— i 


C LO 

CO CO 
CNJ ON 


rtl-CON 
<tLO<J-T 

rH LO CN CO 

CO O CO ON 

LO fN LO LO 


co r- 
■a- *t 

ro ro 


CJN LO -— < CO U0 ON 
~-i CO 1X3 OO r]- O 


LD cn 

en cnj 


LO l>- CJN C3N 
CO O Cnj .-i 

•—I CNJ CNJ 


ro cnj 


CNJ rH 
LD LD 



</_ = 




W "= 


— C 

C C 


2 n 


Q 


r* S 




U g 





r*» cn lo o ro cnj lo «— i 
LOOOOlOLO m ^o 
,— i r— i cnj r— < <3- ro COLO 



CNJ O 


CNJ LD 


lo cnj ld r-^ 


r-H cn 


lo co ld ro 


i— 1 i— t 


ON CO 


CO LD 


en cnj >a- o- 


■* cn 


LD CO LO LO 


cnj cn 


<*■ «3" 


r-~ ro 


T 


LO 


O LO CNJ CNJ 


OO 1 — 



scoroo O CO 

i— < i— I ON LO rH LO 

HHIOLO CO N 






CNJ o ro O LO O 



o o cn o cn o 



S3 w 

z ; 

w < 

u ■ 
Q S 

§s 

Q.E 



m rr-, 

C J. 



w 06 

u — 

C J, 



r-H^-r-HLDCNJCNJ ^-CNJ 



onooonloolo COro 

ro ■— I LO r-H 



OO O CO O i-H o 



CD ^h o ro ot 



CD O LO LD LO LD 



O O CO r-H CO rH 



LD >g- 


CNJ O^ 


C3N rH rH CD 


O --i 


r]" r]- rH LO 


LO cn 


CD O CNJ rj- 


CNJ rj- 


LD LO 


rH CNJ 


^-1 rH 


CNJ H 


OO OsJ CNJ rH 


LO OO 


CNJ CNJ 


OnI cnj 



cn r>s co «^- r-- > 



>• i 

Z ¥ 

- 
w 
_i. 

-i. 

c 



B 

.2 v 
■a " 



CDCDOOOLO OLO 



COCO^rCOrHrJ- ot 



O LO 


o o 


O O LO O 


o o 


r~ cnj 

^-t cn 


CNJ CT> 
O- ON 


O O 0~- ON 

rj-tOLors 


•rj- LO 

lo r^ 



rH rH rH rH 0-. 00 



CNJ *-T LD LO O ON 

O CNJ CO 1 — CMN 

rH rH OO CNJ rH 


C0 rH 
rH LD 

CNJ ^ 


00 «3- 
LD LD 


r^ r^ 

■-I CD 
•—< CNJ 


ro 
r-s. 


lo lo cn 

LOCOIN 


o o 
CO r^ 


ON 00 LD LO rH CO 

ON CO O -=3- rj- rj- 


LD LD 
<3- CNJ 

CNJ —1 


OO LD 
ON O 

LO CNJ 


ON LO 
LO ON 


ro 

LO 


on o r-~ 

ON ^-1 


ro lo 

■* CNJ 



o o o o o o 

LD o ro CO ON i-H 

rj- ro cnj ld r~ cnj 

-H CNJ •—! 



cn oo cn oo rH cn 

LO r CO rH rH 0^ 

cn ld cn r-- oo n 

(Nl T rH CNJ 



n. LO CO CTI LO LO 

r^ rj- onj lo o CD 

^-t ,—i r-t ^-t 0O OO 



o o o o o o 



OO -d" CTi ON O 



- i 



I 14 



CM OD <D "5f 


CO CM 


CM * CO i— 1 


O LO 


co r-» in * 


ro cm 


ro ro un en 


en cm 



^mcOrt^cviNNq-* 



C/3 




'1 
















H 






o 

00 












X 




Q 




*7 


r-~ 


o 


<n 


co 


LO CO 


P 




a 




ch 


CM 


CM 


ro 


CM 


LO -3- 


o 




u 
















u 






O 
<-< 






















^r 


LO 




LO 


U1 CM 


a 




o 






ro 


ro 


CM 


^r 


Ln co 




M 




^C 






i-H 


CM 


r-H CM 


o 




















NN 




















PS 








o 


LO 


CM 


00 


co 


*~T LO 


W 


"t 






o 


CM 


1 — 


LD 


CO 


CT LO 


oo 
















CM CM 


cu 


1 


















p 


oe 






at 

< 












09 








o 
ro 


o 

in 


o 

O 


o 

ro 


O O 
CT. CO 


w 


05 






LO 


LO 


r^ 


ID 


LO LO 


X 


> 


















H 


A 




C 

a 


u 


CT 


LO 


1-1 


CO 


cr> en 




CJ 




s 


< 


l— 




c 3 


C > 


CT LT1 


Z 






CT. 


C_ 


CM 


CO 


O CO 




OD 






-o 












</) 


C 


















w 








o 


ro 


r-» 


a) 


(11 


r-H LO 









O. 


CM 


LO 


, — i 


CO 


■3- ■* 


c/3 


3 



T3 




H 


5 


CM 


1-1 


«3- 


St 


LO LO 


< 


















u 


CU 

EM 



















lo ■— I r-. cm ro co 
lo in ro lo ct.CZ) 
n n cm cr.ro 



in co cm lo r-. «a- 

COCmro ro «=j- 

LO CM 1— I CO CM 



o o lo o o O 



CT. ro CM CM O LO 



CM =3" *3" O LO «3" 

co f— i ro ro lo *3 

tiniDrH o r- 



HNNO CON 

cm r-~ ro i— i lo CO 
roNHH ro ro 



i— i un ct. cm o i — 
in co oo cm ■=*■ o 

HHMfO "3- LO 



o o o o o o 



CM 

O 


lo 

co 


l-O 

uo 


o 

Ln 


CM 

CO 


CO 
LO 


r — 


* 


o 


CO 


cr> 


co 


lo 

ro 


CM 

O 


Ln 
oo 


o 

CT 


LO 


CO 
CT 



r-H CO CM CT fl N 
CM CM CO «3" ION 

lo lo uo u~) i — i t— i 



cm o .—i co ro ro 

cs- o cm ro lo ro 

.— i ■— i cm i— i ro 



O o O O O O 



ID N COCO LO o 



in CO ■— i r-~ lo Ln 

LO CO CO i— I CT o 

rHC\JlllN LO O 



<jo**rHoc\jaicnn old 

OlN^tCnn^-^-rHlDO COCM 
i— 1 r-H rH r- 1 i— I t— I mm 



LOOLO^rCTLD'— ILOr-HCM CM C- 

■J id in r- ^t in o in ro (T coco 

CM r-H CM rH CM CMCM C^rv 



oooooooooo oo 



i — I . — I ID r^ I s - ^- r^ - 



LD CT — < *-f 



LniniocTcocMOiniocM Lnro 

WONWIOOIOIN^'J o>ci- 
CMCM«^J-rO"^-COrOCMCO^r CTLO 



VI 



o 

Q. 



o o «* o *a- o 



o 
z 

< 

s 

o 



o 
z 

< 






cu 

ex 

< 

C 
C3 

■* 

00 

o 

SO 
OX 

■3 

c 

cu 

CU 



a ,i 



•a Q 



2 A 



O cm ro -3- ro id 



lO^tCMO 


CO •3- 


CT i-H Ln CM 


=3- CO 


ro cm CO in 


i— 1 r~- 


r-H CM "5f CM 


in •=d- 


CM LO 


OO LD 


HrtlDOl 


CO <* 



r-H r- 1 ro 



n ■* m m 


CD r-~ 


ro Ln co <3- 


ld cr< 


CM ro CM 


ro in 


.—1 CM ID 


co in 



CO i— 1 i— I CT 


«* o 


OrtlDrH 


LO CM 


CO CO LO ■— 1 


* LO 


in* i— i 


lo in 



<^j- ro iO *t 


o r— 


cn cnj «e3* c\j 


oo <^|- 


ro cn cn ro 


CNJ CNJ 


r^ ro ro cnj 


O LO 


HCVJN"? 


CT\ kO 


^j- "X> co r^ 


co ro 


UD N N N 


«3* LO 


CNJ iJD vjd o 


cn ud 



CTCOLDLn^J-CMCMCMr~- 



COCOCO"3-CMCOt— IOCOCT 



CO CO 
CM CM 



in in 


CM LD 


t— ICO"— ICOLOCOCOi— ICTC0 


CZ> CO 


ct ro 


ld q- 


* .-H 


CM r^ 



ini — cnmco^oirtcon croo 
forowq-Nfl-mM<3-in cmct 



J <U 



z 

o 

w 

o 

w 
o 



cu 
ex 



.< 






•s.s 

Cu 



in o o o o in 



LD CO CO ,— I r-H CO 



CO cr r^ ct. in CO 

rHsJCMr- *d- CM 



CD o o o o in 



CT CO O ID r-H CO 






"3- lo CT CO ro ^r 

CT r-H CM CO CM LO 

cocj"*rn ro ro 



CD Ln O O CD o 



I — ■ CO CM CT CM CM 

■* co cfi^t i-^. co 

cr ro lo co ^r oo 

HW .-H r-H 



in CM •—< CM LD <3" 

i— i r~- co co y-o 

CM CM —I r-H CO «3" 



o o o o o o 



--H CT CT CD co in 

LD CD ro CT LO in 

LD I— I CO CM CO CM 

«-H .-H CM t-H CM i— 1 



CD ^H * r-H 
CM CT CM CO 
CM CO CO 



* CM 

in >3- 



oc^ininoinoinoo oo 



o LD CM LO CM CD * 



q-^OWlDOr- ILD— ICO CMin 

LO^-LOLDCTLOLDLnr-^CD LDCM 

r-i r-H r-H r— I LO «H- 



s: Li_ s: li_ 2: u_ : 



co 




H-> 


Tl 


u 


l_ 


-t— 


O 


l_ 


lf- 


+J 


i — 


t/1 






-1 


o 


CD 



o >^ 



115 



cnj ro in co o — < o cnj r^ on 



>3-rtioocOrtOMnom i^ co 







c 






cc re 











=c 


*3- — 1 














X. 




J' 








H 




a. 




a 




s: 




= 






r— 1 a> 


£ 




a 




Psl 


m on 


O 




s 








U 




w 




e 

rj 














co 


a 




C 




_ 


CNJ 




s 




•C 


<0 *T 


c 




ex 








M 












K 








Q 

■c 


ro 


_ 


3C 









CN_ CNJ 

CNJ i-"> 


a, 


r*5 










- 












- 


U 

eg 
ai 






< 


O O 
LD CM 

in -3- 


= 


> 










h 


55 




s 


M 


r- cnj 


z 


U 

y 




2 


< 


r--. 

CO IO 




tx 






■O 




x 








s 




_ 


— 




c 


Z 

c 


cc en 
co r- 


x 


3 




- 


n 




< 


-3 








Cvj CM 


u 













oo^M'OtMCOOMn 



r-CNjcncNjiococo«3-CNjr-^ r-^co 
.— 1 .— 1 co t-~ i-i 



LDCOmOOrHMWOO CNJ i-H 

CMLONCOWrOOCO CNJ IO 

1— I CNJ CNJ 



.—1 co 



CT»om 10 1 



*3-*niniocNjcNjcNjin 

HMrHaiHLOrHH 
~H CNJ ^H CNJ 



co o 

in 1— I 
CNJ IO 



OOOOOOOO OO 



ONcor^aNOOminco on ^3- 



c»iLnn-i<fLOCOi\jO cocnj 
MOr^LncONmco cnj r^ 



o^-no^mnoo ai lo 

kDiHCOiH^T-ir^P-. m .— I 

.— 1 cnj -^- 1— 1 co co r-- o 



NONOMnnco q- co 
1-H1— it— luncNjcNjr--. ocnj 

•—1 ■-! OJ 



ooooounoo 00 



LT! 1— IdNr- I 1^ in CO CNJ l~^ 



r^. r — 1— iNnomuo 10 on 

cnji— <«^-«^-iocNjoNr-* cnj in 

hm »— 1 co in 



on on 1 — roco^rcNjr^cNj^j- 00 n 

CNJ CNJ I — 1 — i . — I *3- CO 



oooooooomo 00 



LOrHLDCOlDiHn^LOOJ CTi UD 

M/ilOONOlC^OOltn ON r*- 

cocoouDcoco.— iCNjmo CNjro 

■—I 1— I 1— 1 CNJ •-• •— I ■— • CNJ .— I ^H 



x 



£~ 



O 



tx 
< 

■3 
B 



ocNjcNjinoocNjm 



C .i ( *' ' 



in in LD'd- o 



cnj r^ rors 



.£ »- 



Q = 



CNjoincNjocoiocNj 



ON>d-cnr-oocorooN 01 co 

r— < CNJ .— < rHINfO NIN 



CO^j-CNJUD-a-ONCNjON 



LDOjinLncvi-H^orOLO 



CO o <*) w? h 01 rv 



cnjcnjcnjocnj.— ir-rocNj— 1 m r— 



irOOM*0<3-CMOlO 



OOOOOOOO OO 



c 

- 

o 

x 



w 


-- 


-* 


O 


U3 


c 


m 


■^r 


r- 


-r 


^_ 


ro 


r^ 


rO 


-t 


„. 


** 




^r 


P"> 


O 


ou 


U3 


n 


un 


00 


. — 1 


10 


O 


r~ 


*J 










■ — 1 


CNJ 










1 — 1 




1 — 1 




s 






























V 
































5 


-- 


~ 


O 


r j 


-< 


'-O 


r^. 


C J 


m 


- 


LO 


■o 


U3 



» .5 
31 



lOCONNOLncnoi 
CNjcNji-HCOr^r^cocO 



cOfOornaiLOOiin ^jdlo 

MiHOCOHfOLnCn ocnj 

—> — 1 ro cnj 



ooooomoo 00 



cntoo^-Oinr- 1 CO 
mCOCOCOCNjoOO 



•d-iDCOComn-q-cn co^-i 

OMONCOCO<J-0 OCNJ 

OiounMDO'JW r^o 

Hi- I^HCNJCNJCNJr-lr-l ^HCNJ 



udcooo— iHfflioui ^hcnj 
in n lon^jco un unio 

1— I CNJ CNJ 



inooinoooooo 00 

com^j-i — p^cor^in*^-cO in in 

oiinOioms^O'ti — r^-ro 
t— 1 f—t ro cnj •— * •— < <— 1 



CTiHq-cocvJOmcocico enro 

CTtCOcninLnroco^-tCNjro ^-<—t 

r^cr.r~~c0CNjc0io— 1 CTi i-h in id 

rococNjro.— tcNj ^h^hcnj »— icnj 



•^ ■.- T3 



1 16 



<a- co o o ^r co 



COOIUIOI — CNJ CO CTi r^ Cn 



H 
O 

u 

ft! 

2 



w 3 



Q 






r») 


c 


■- 


o 
















o 




Cu 


o 


1/5 


90 


Q 








«• 


<M 


<« 




Si 






O 


«-_ 




o 


im 



LO LO LO On r-)Ul 



en *a- m ■— i *3- r-^ ooo 
i — i i — i *3- i— i 



rHrHNOIH* OlCO 
i— I CNI CNJ U"> CO 



kD^oo>ton LO CO 
co r-^ co co *a- o OU3 

. — I . — 1 CO CNI 



r-~ oo 


CO LD 


CO i-i •* en 


CNJ O 


en LO 


CNJ O 


CNJ ■* 


CO i—l i—( 


LO CNJ 


r- CNi 



•—1 CO 


U0 CO 


1 — > — 1 <=*- ■ — 1 


en oo 


CO CTi 


CNI U0 1 — CO 


r- cnj 


CO 


1 — 1 



no «d" 


r-~ co 


c~> co r-~ i— i 


LO Kt 


"=3 LO 


CO CNJ 


=3" CO 


LO CO UO *3" 


cnj r-~ 


co lo 


■=3- <a- 


■=3 CO 


i — i i — i 


CNJ i—l 


CNI .— 1 



HHCOnnfl-iDmoij coco 

CO ■— I CNJ i— li— I CO LD ■— < IOCO 



oiDmucMiv iHoicorv «3- oo 
en oo un oo <— I en uo co ■— < cOlo 

i — I r-H «3- i — I 



O^TOkDNVDrOCOO"* OOCO 

r^ <=3 r^ io •— i r^ococNj m ^ 
i—i i—i i—i ^r cni 



P 3 
m - 

cu 

©c 

w •= 
<% 

c/3 g- 



« < 



o a. 
H .12 

Q 



O O O O O O LOO 



CO<JHHO 



«3" LO CT> CNJ LO •— 1 COLT) 
CO *3" .-I 00 ■* .-h *3-.-i 



**• >3- co <3- oo cni oo 
oo co co cr> oo oo co en 
*3- cnj «^- r-n lo i^r in co 



o uo o o o o 



r-» cni 

CO CO 
1 — 1 


I — i—i 

co ^3 


oo en lo cni 

CO i^- CO <o 


l-» CNI 

r^ in 


oo -=3 
oo un 


CO CO 


*3 LD 
CO CNI 

co c^ 


CNJ CO CNi en 


00 CTi 


"* CO 


CO CO 

r~ en 


O CO O LO 

COCOCDN 


•a- en 

— < CO 


CNI CO 

.— l CO 



UT) 1=3- 


r~- in 


<=3- *d- o o 


<* <* 


CO CO 


i-H CO 


IX) i—l 


UlONOl 


CNJ Cn 


i-H O 


Cn CO 


CD m 


CO CNJ CNI 


CO CNJ 


O CO 



OOOOOOOOOm OO 



<tc\io^oroLnLO^-cD uo^r 

LDi-iococricOi— iriNn oin 

OlcnLOI^COCOCMOCON COCNJ 

.— I i-H CNJ i— I i-H i— I i-H CNJ i— I i-H 



co <3- o ■— i in co r-^ co "=3 cni oi oo 
«a-i— I— i cni lo cni cni in o m "3- co 

•^J- i — I CNJ i — I UDCNJi-H COLO 



© 

z 



«r> 


0) 


% 


ox 


W 


< 


S 


73 
C 


w 


« 


Q 


oo 


m 


o 


^m 


CO 


s 


^O 




Of 





c 


z 


■o 
c 


< 


0- 


^*\ 


(/l 


n-i 


4) 

t/s 


w 


r i 



O J. 



(A — 



o ?5 



■a u 



LT> *3- CNI ■=}• 00 "3" 



m CO LD CO LO LO i? co^- 

* CNJ CO LO i— I 

c-i 



I^MDOCOiT) 


CO CNI 


<=J- o 


■=3 co *d- cnj co r~ 


CO CO 


—i ai 




l—l t— 1 


"* i-i 



oooooo oo 



COCTHDOOT* 
CO OlCOiH N fl- 



co co o lo co en 



LO «3- LT> CNJ .— I LO 



r^ r^ ^d- ^3- i—i i—i 
cni i— i -g- i— ) 



HnttOOOCOCOHhO ^j-co 



CNJ CO 


r^ <*■ 


LD IT) 


en cni co o 


r- cnj 


r^ o 


=3- -—I 


O LD 


CNI CO CNI 


CO LD 


i — i i — i 


CNJ ■— 1 


i — 1 







o o o o o o 



I CNJ CD CO CO O CNI O 



OCTlCNl!— ICNIOCNIi— IOCO 
*3- pH i—l CO CNJ CNI 



CDCDOLDOOOOOO oo 



z 

o 

w 

O 

m 

w 

< 



<u 

DC 
< 



TS .S 

H 41 



LOCNJLOCOCOl-n toco 



cncoLOLOLOi^ i— * CTt 

OHMDOM OlO 
i— I i— I — I CNI i—l "3" CO 



I O0 _!(/) 



OlCOCOfN O 00 



<3- o 

en isj- 

r-l CNJ 


cn uo 
en en 


LD i-H CO i— 1 

en CTi •— 1 CD 

i— 1 i—l 


O LO 

O en 

i—i 


.-1 r- 

LO l~- 

i-i i-i 


en CD 

LO CNJ 
CNJ "3- 


,-h C30 
<*■ CO 

CNJ i—l 


in ai ai o 

CNJ CO CO CO 


lo en 
co «3- 

•-< -—I 


CO CO 
CO 



i— injdcjiCnjcT'i— i cm ro co o ^ro 

OriNCMO^CTiCTiCTi'Nt r-1 r-1 

NLO(\jio>-iLf)aicriOLn loco 

(-Hi— !<— t CSJPO Mr- |t— It— ) 



r— iro«^rcxiCrtT— \ co <o co <— . 
CTiCOrorOt— ir-|c\jr^^-CNJ 



117 



CSJ LtO *J" -— < *J" LO «— I 1£1 CO N (\J o^ o 



SO LO 



lo CSJ 
00 CM 

CO r~- 



- 

- 
o 

K 
fad 3 

fit, ^ 

p £ 

WSJ 

<- a 

— "*■ 

ex 

w ■= 



.= oe 



G _ 

SI 

< 



-3 OX 



■— iomc^p^.rouor^ooa^cor-'=r^- «— < cx> 
id in c^ «a- ■—< no <— i i— i csj co 



_ 4* 

a s 

O O. 

H .85 

Q 



oooololoolooooooo oo 

<trt Mr- ii— i i— i t— i oo o lt> i— i lo co r-. i — co 

OLDtMrOMDCO'JNlil'-lrH^rH O «3" 

t— ■ t— I CO i— I .— I CSJ ■— 1 i— I i— I i— I i— I i— I .— 1 r-( 



OiroN(\jQ-^oninroo^-ON .— < csj 

csj lo csj t— ittnot^oD^tcoincyCNjo ■— i t-n 

NVDtOrfHH^COOlDOClUHD HOI 

HrH(<lHMnWrtMH(>Of»l .— I CSJ t— I 



iriClOCOMlDlDOl — CO CSJ O O LO CO LO 

co-— i ■— icsjroi— i co en ^ lo ■— < *a- <a- ro co en 
.— i n i— i i— i i— i I--. *a- 



co r-. 

I — lo 
co un 



lo csj 
r~» co 
O co 



*d- o 
c\j .—I 
*3- «3" 



LO O 

CO <* 



co •-< 
en .— i 
lo ro 



<X 






^ 


^ 


^ 


ex 


fad 


< 


^ 


"2 


fad 


^ 


Q 


3C 


t: 


e 


— 


rrj 


£ 


-c 




iJ 


Q 


E 


z 


■B 


< 


^ 






/^*. 


./■ 


_ 


i- 



fad « 



z 

c 

- 

fad 
U. 

'- 

o 

w 



sx 



C J, 



w ° 



cou)00'-<fooMnoHinron«d- 



g-uioonq-cownrsjcfii- 1 coco lo csj 

*— < <^f- CO .— < Cn LO 



ICSJOLOLOrOCOOCSJOO 
CSJ CM i— 1 i—4 



ifltOOUlO 



Oloooooooooloooo oo 



5 < 



OOOOJONNOlONOMSffl 

LO CO r-trO-HCMCSJNr-HtrHrHrH 

CSJ .— I 



CJ1 LO 
CO CO 
^3" CSJ 



CO LO 

in as 
ro LO 



r-» O 
*d- lo 

o o 



.— i lo 
•a- csj 

CSJ OS 



OMDNlOlOrOHCvJ 


CO lo 


■* CSJ 


LO CSJ 


OS "3- 


o CO 

«*■ CT> 



LO LO 

in co 
co co 

LO co 
o o 



nNOHiDrtoanomoq-N^r lo «d- 

r-~ ro loromr-iiMrooMntsNo en csj 

i— i csj ■— 1—4 •— icsjro t— i 



soOiHMjuoooiowaiNOj cold 

*3-«3-OrOr^csjLOrOOSCnLOCOLOf-H r$- in 

I^OS LOLOCO.— lOOm-— ICOCSJLDLO Ol CO 

— i -H CSJ CSJ — I ^-4 CO CSJ CSJ CSJ — I H 



O CO 
O -3- 

^1- en 



r— b- flj 



PART IV, Section 2 

District Court Division 
Caseflow Data 



The District Court Division 



This section contains data tables and accompanying 
charts depicting the caseflow in 1983-84 of cases filed and 
disposed of in the State's district courts, including those 
handled by magistrates. 

When the plaintiff in a civil case requests, and the 
amount in controversy does not exceed $1,000, the case 
may be classified as a "small claim" civil action and 
assigned to a magistrate for hearing. Magistrates also 
have certain criminal case jurisdiction. They may accept 
written appearance and waiver of trial, with plea of guilty, 
and enter judgment in accord with the schedule of fines 
promulgated by chief district judges for traffic offenses; 
and effective July 1, 1984, for boating, hunting and fish- 
ing offenses. Also, magistrates may accept guilty pleas in 
other misdemeanor cases where the sentence cannot be in 
excess of 30 days or $50 fine; and may hear and enter 
judgment in worthless check cases where the amount 
involved is $500 or less, and any prison sentence imposed 
does not exceed 30 days. 

Appeals from magistrates' judgments in both civil and 
criminal cases are to the district court, with a district court 
judge presiding. 

This section contains data on three major case classifi- 
cations in the district court division: civil cases, juvenile 
proceedings, and criminal cases. Civil cases include cases 
assigned to magistrates (small claims as defined above), 
domestic relations cases (chiefly concerned with annul- 
ments, divorces, alimony, custody and support of chil- 
dren), and "general civil" cases. Juvenile proceedings are 
classified in accordance with the nature of the offense or 
condition alleged in the petition which initiates the case. 
District court criminal cases are divided into motor vehi- 
cle cases (where the offense charged is defined in Chapter 
20 of the North Carolina General Statutes) and non- 
motor criminal cases. 

Consistent with previous years, the pie charts on the 
following page illustrate that district court criminal cases 
filed and disposed of in the 1983-84 year greatly out- 
numbered civil cases. Motor vehicle criminal cases ac- 
counted for fifty-three per cent of total filings and disposi- 
tions, and the non-motor vehicle criminal cases ac- 
counted for about twenty-six per cent. As in past years, 
the greatest portion of district court civil filings and dis- 
positions were small claims referred to magistrates. 

The large volume categories of criminal motor-vehicle 
and civil magistrate cases are not reported to AOC by case 
file numbers. Therefore, it is not possible to obtain, by 
computer processing, the numbers of pending cases as of 
a given date or the ages of cases pending and ages of cases 
at disposition. These categories of cases are processed 
through the courts faster than any others, thus explaining 
the decision not to allocate personnel and computer 
resource to reporting these cases in the detail that is 
provided for other categories of cases. 



Also, juvenile proceedings and hearings on commit- 
ment or recommitment of persons to the State's mental 
hospital facilities are not reported to AOC by case file 
numbers. 

Two tables are provided on juvenile proceedings: 
offenses and conditions alleged, and numbers of adjudi- 
catory hearings held. 

Data on district court hearings for mental hospital 
commitments and recommitments is reported in Part III, 
"Cost and Case Data on Representation of Indigents." 

Ages of district court cases pending on June 30, 1984, 
and ages of cases disposed of during 1983-84 are reported 
for the general civil and domestic relations and for the 
criminal non-motor vehicle case categories. 

The table for general civil and domestic relations cases 
shows that the median age of such cases which were 
pending on June 30, 1984, was 156 days, compared with a 
median age of 150 days for cases pending on June 30, 
1983. The median age of cases in this category at the time 
of disposition during 1983-84 was 64.5 days, compared 
with a median age of 68 days at the time of disposition 
during 1982-83. 

For district court non-motor vehicle criminal cases, the 
median age for cases pending on June 30, 1984, was 44 
days comapred with a median age of 59 days for cases 
pending on June 30, 1983. The median age of cases in this 
category at the time of disposition during 1983-84 was 26 
days compared with a median age of 24 days at the time of 
disposition during 1982-83. 

The Statewide total district court filings during 1983- 
84, not including juvenile cases and mental hospital 
commitment hearings, was 1,450,179 cases, compared 
with 1,445,571 during 1982-83, an increase of 4,608 
(0.2%). All of this increase came in the motor vehicle 
criminal case category where filings in 1982-83 amounted 
to 728,5 1 7 cases compared to 768,403 cases filed in 1 983- 
84, an increase of 39,886 (5.5%) cases. On the other hand, 
there was a decrease of 19,735 cases (4.9%) in the non- 
motor vehicle criminal case category. 

There also was a decrease (5.5%) in district court civil 
case filings, from a total of 316,539 in 1982-83 to 298,996 
in 1983-84. Most of this decrease was in civil magistrate 
filings, from 206,163 cases in 1982-83 to 194,321 cases in 
1983-84. In the domestic relations category, there was a 
small decrease of 248 cases in 1983-84 compared to the 
number in 1982-83. 

The changes from year-to-year in the individual case 
categories are not unusual. The over-all trend for total 
district court case filings over the past several years has 
been upward. This upward trend is reflected in the total 
1983-84 district court case filings. 



121 



FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

1983-84 



FILINGS 



CRIMINAL MOTOR VEHICLE 



DOMESTIC RELATIONS 



CIVIL MAGISTRATE 




CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR VEHICLE 



GENERAL CIVIL 3.1% 



DISPOSITIONS 



CRIMINAL MOTOR VEHICLE 



DOMESTIC RELATIONS 




CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR VEHICLE 



CIVIL MAGISTRATE 



GENERAL CIVIL 3.3% 



Criminal cases, both motor vehicle and non-motor vehi- district court filings and 79.2% of all district court disposi- 
cle, dominate the district court caseload; 79.4% of all tions during fiscal year 1983-84 were criminal cases. 



122 



FILING AND DISPOSITION TRENDS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

1974 _ 1983-84 



2.0 



M 
1 

L 
L 
I 

O 
N 
S 



o 

F 



C 
A 

S 
E 

S 



1.5 



0.5 



0.0 




Filings /T # .__ — 




Dispositions 



74 



75 



76 



77 



78 



78-79 79-80 80-81 81-82 



82-83 83-84 



All civil and criminal case filings and dispositions for the 
last decade, including traffic offenses and civil magistrate 
cases, are included in the above graph. The increase in 



filings and dispositions for fiscal year 1983-84 is due to a 
5.5% increase in filings and a 5.89c increase in dispositions 
for motor vehicle cases. 



123 



FILING AND DISPOSITION TRENDS OF CIVIL DISTRICT COURT CASES 

1974 — 1983-84 



400 



I 
H 

O 

I 

S 

A 

N 

I) 

S 



O 
F 



C 

\ 
s 
E 
S 



300 



200 



100 




filings / / 

/ 

Dispositions 



74 



75 



76 



77 



78 



78-79 



79-80 



I 



T 



80-8! 81-82 82-83 83-84 



District court civil filings and dispositions have been de- 
clining for the last three years in contrast to the previous 
upward trend. During year 1983-84, general civil filings 



decreased by 10.7%, domestic relations filings decreased 
by 0.4%, and civil magistrate filings decreased by 5.8%. 



124 



GENERAL CIVIL AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS 
CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

1983-1984 



80 



60 



I 

H 
O 
U 

s 

A 

N 
I) 
S 



() 
F 



C 

A 

S 
F 

S 



40 



20 



FILINGS 
DISPOSITIONS 
END PENDING 



59,039 



57,480 



47,309 



45,636 



24,976 



T 



GENERAL CIVIL 



24,037 



I 
DOMESTIC RELATIONS 



General civil case dispositions exceeded filings by 1,673, 
producing a decrease by the same number in cases pend- 
ing at the end of the year. Domestic relations filings 



exceeded dispositions by 1,559, resulting in the same 
increase in the number of such cases pending at year end. 



125 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR GENERAL CIVIL AND 
DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1983 — June 30, 1984 



District 1 



Filings 



Pending General Domestic Total 

7/1/83 Total Civil Relations Caseload 



Camden 13 42 11 31 55 

Chowan 152 194 67 127 346 

Currituck 66 149 48 101 215 

Dare 143 267 126 141 410 

Gates 40 75 19 56 115 

Pasquotank 239 440 155 285 679 

Perquimans 42 111 31 80 153 

District Totals 695 1,278 457 821 1,973 

District 2 

Beaufort 240 555 174 381 795 

Hyde 33 73 18 55 106 

Martin 189 362 76 286 551 

Tyrrell 26 36 19 17 62 

Washington 92 256 64 192 348 

District Totals 580 1,282 351 931 1,862 1,276 68.5 586 

District 3 

Carteret 405 759 282 477 1,164 670 57.6 494 

Craven 713 1,648 691 957 2,361 1,504 63.7 857 





% Caseload 


Pending 


>osed 


Disposed 


6/30/84 


37 


67.3 


18 


236 


68.2 


110 


160 


74.4 


55 


268 


65.4 


142 


82 


71.3 


33 


472 


69.5 


207 


97 


63.4 


56 


352 


68.5 


621 


508 


63.9 


287 


56 


52.8 


50 


377 


68.4 


174 


49 


79.0 


13 


286 


82.2 


62 



405 


759 


713 


1,648 


80 


118 


736 


1,184 



Pamlico 80 118 28 90 198 103 52.0 95 

Pitt 736 1,184 495 689 1,920 1,337 69.6 583 

District Totals 1,934 3,709 1,496 2,213 5,643 3,614 64.0 2,029 

District 4 

Duplin 250 491 198 293 741 525 

Jones 71 109 28 81 180 100 



250 


491 


71 


109 


,105 


1,842 


308 


717 



70.8 


216 


55.6 


80 


55.2 


1,319 


76.7 


239 



Onslow 1,105 1,842 651 1,191 2,947 1,628 

Sampson 308 717 297 420 1,025 786 

District Totals 1,734 3,159 1,174 1,985 4,893 3,039 62.1 1,854 

District 5 

New Hanover 2,073 3,122 1,844 1,278 5,195 3,021 58.2 2,174 

Pender 214 403 145 258 617 351 56.9 266 

District Totals 2,287 3,525 1,989 1,536 5,812 3,372 58.0 2,440 

District 6 

Bertie 98 302 72 230 400 302 75.5 98 

Halifax 162 994 187 807 1,156 834 72.1 322 

Hertford 167 495 248 247 662 482 72.8 180 

Northampton 81 293 43 250 374 301 80.5 73 

District Totals 508 2,084 550 1,534 2,592 1,919 74.0 673 

District 7 

Edgecombe 627 950 258 692 1,577 869 55.1 708 

Nash 685 1,062 358 704 1,747 1,081 61.9 666 

Wilson 677 1,231 400 831 1,908 1,103 57.8 805 

District Totals 1,989 3,243 1,016 2,227 5,232 3,053 58.4 2,179 

District 8 

Greene 39 110 17 93 149 121 81.2 28 

Lenoir 537 1,227 407 820 1,764 1,301 73.8 463 

Wayne 1,076 1,906 787 1,119 2,982 2,192 73.5 790 

District Totals 1,652 3,243 1,211 2,032 4,895 3,614 73.8 1,281 



26 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR GENERAL CIVIL AND 
DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1983 - June 30, 1984 

Filings 



District 9 

Franklin 

Granville 

Person 

Vance 

Warren 

District Totals 



Pending 




General 


Domestic 


Total 


7/1/83 


Total 


Civil 


Relations 


Caseload 


170 


327 


237 


90 


497 


155 


361 


128 


233 


516 


151 


401 


163 


238 


552 


210 


514 


97 


417 


724 


74 


414 


88 


326 


488 



760 



2,017 



713 



1,304 



2,777 





% Caseload 


Pending 


>osed 


Disposed 


6/30/84 


342 


68.8 


155 


345 


66.9 


171 


387 


70.1 


165 


508 


70.2 


216 


408 


83.6 


80 



1,990 



71.7 



787 



District 10 
Wake 



3,867 



7,479 



4,782 



2,697 



11,346 



7,858 



69.2 



3,488 



District 11 



Harnett 


326 


976 


505 


471 


1,302 


994 


76.3 


308 


Johnston 


474 


1,713 


987 


726 


2,187 


1,655 


75.7 


532 


Lee 


405 


1,059 


721 


338 


1,464 


1,049 


71.6 


415 


District Totals 


1,205 


3,748 


2,213 


1,535 


4,953 


3,698 


74.7 


1,255 


District 12 


















Cumberland 


3,204 


5,025 


1,211 


3,814 


8,229 


5,164 


62.8 


3,065 


Hoke 


111 


288 


104 


184 


399 


306 


76.7 


93 


District Totals 


3,315 


5,313 


1,315 


3,998 


8,628 


5,470 


63.4 


3,158 


District 13 


















Bladen 


128 


507 


302 


205 


635 


494 


77.8 


141 


Brunswick 


330 


828 


465 


363 


1,158 


691 


59.7 


467 


Columbus 


470 


1,014 


388 


626 


1,484 


1,057 


71.2 


427 


District Totals 


928 


2,349 


1,155 


1,194 


3,277 


2,242 


68.4 


1,035 


District 14 


















Durham 


1,504 


2,929 


1,256 


1,673 


4,433 


2,553 


57.6 


1,880 


District 15A 


















Alamance 


418 


1,624 


609 


1,015 


2,042 


1,599 


78.3 


443 


District 15B 


















Chatham 


168 


333 


108 


225 


501 


284 


56.7 


217 


Orange 


607 


866 


447 


419 


1,473 


741 


50.3 


732 


District Totals 


775 


1,199 


555 


644 


1,974 


1,025 


51.9 


949 


District 16 


















Robeson 


951 


2,114 


1,105 


1,009 


3,065 


2,172 


70.8 


893 


Scotland 


261 


440 


122 


318 


701 


528 


75.3 


173 


District Totals 


1,212 


2,554 


1,227 


1,327 


3,766 


2,700 


71.7 


1,066 


District 17A 


















Caswell 


94 


219 


51 


168 


313 


223 


71.2 


90 


Rockingham 


374 


1,175 


343 


832 


1,549 


1,187 


76.6 


362 


District Totals 


468 


1,394 


394 


1,000 


1,862 


1,410 


75.7 


452 


District 17B 


















Stokes 


96 


253 


86 


167 


349 


243 


69.6 


106 


Surry 


399 


816 


333 


483 


1,215 


904 


74.4 


311 


District Totals 


495 


1,069 


419 


650 


1,564 


1,147 


73.3 


417 


District 18 


















Guilford 


3,159 


7,286 


3,762 


3,524 


10,445 


7,505 


71.8 


2,940 



127 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR GENERAL CIVIL AND 
DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1983 — June 30, 1984 

Filings 



District 19A 

Cabarrus 
Rowan 

District Totals 

District 19B 

Montgomery 
Randolph 

District Total s 



District 20 

Anson 

Moore 

Richmond 

Stanly 

Union 

District Totals 

District 21 
Forsyth 

District 22 

Alexander 
Davidson 
Davie 
Iredell 

District Totals 
District 23 



Burke 

Caldwell 

Catawba 

District Totals 

District 26 
Mecklenburg 

District 27A 

ii-.tor 



Pending 

7/1/83 


Total 


General 
Civil 


Domestic 
Relations 


Total 
Caseload 


Disposed 


% Caseload 
Disposed 


Pending 

6/30/84 


748 
368 


1,322 
1,268 


472 

457 


850 
811 


2,070 
1,636 


1,348 
1,100 


65.1 
67.2 


722 

536 



1,116 



139 
281 

420 



190 
454 
640 
313 
455 

2,052 



2,263 



2,590 



310 
942 

1,252 



334 
763 
643 
653 
942 

3,335 



5,560 



69 


227 


484 


1,270 


176 


257 


513 


1,196 



1,242 



2,950 



929 



262 
307 

569 



100 
361 
215 
286 
371 

1,333 



2,908 



48 
443 

83 
594 

1,168 



1,661 



48 
635 

683 



234 
402 
428 
367 
571 

2,002 



2,652 



179 
827 
174 
602 

1,782 



3,706 



449 
1,223 

1,672 



524 
1,217 
1,283 

966 
1,397 

5,387 



7,823 



296 
1,754 

433 
1,709 

4,192 



515 
579 
835 

1,929 



4,515 



1,073 



998 
1,048 
1,931 

3,977 



10,702 



2,503 



456 
470 
744 

1,670 

5,482 

628 



542 

578 

1,187 

2,307 
5,220 
1,875 



1,513 
1,627 
2,766 

5,906 



15,217 



3,576 



2,448 



235 
922 

1,157 



389 
720 
481 
557 
846 

2,993 



5,634 



215 
1,398 

221 
1,243 

3,077 



1,133 
1,100 
1,880 

4,113 



11,183 



2,584 



66.0 



52.3 
75.4 

69.2 



74.2 
59.2 
37.5 
57.7 
60.6 

55.6 



72.0 



72.6 
79.7 
51.0 
72.7 

73.4 



1,258 



214 
301 

515 



135 
497 
802 
409 
551 

2,394 



2,189 



-81 
356 
212 
466 

1,115 



Alleghany 


50 


134 


55 


79 


184 


141 


76.6 


43 


Ashe 


85 


240 


96 


144 


325 


251 


77.2 


74 


Wilkes 


288 


1,181 


773 


408 


1,469 


1,154 


78.6 


315 


Yadkin 


118 


290 


96 


194 


408 


290 


71.1 


118 


District Totals 


541 


1,845 


1,020 


825 


2,386 


1,836 


76.9 


550 


District 24 


















Avery 


117 


215 


98 


117 


332 


210 


63.2 


122 


Madison 


71 


166 


69 


97 


237 


162 


68.4 


75 


Mitchell 


60 


160 


70 


90 


220 


173 


78.6 


47 


Watauga 


222 


488 


265 


223 


710 


490 


69.0 


220 


Yancey 


64 


126 


50 


76 


190 


130 


68.4 


60 


District Totals 


534 


1,155 


552 


603 


1,689 


1,165 


69.0 


524 


District 25 



















74.9 


380 


67.6 


527 


67.9 


886 


69.6 


1,793 


73.5 


4,034 



72.2 



992 



128 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR GENERAL CIVIL AND 
DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1983 — June 30, 1984 



Filings 



Pending General Domestic Total % Caseload Pending 

7/1/83 Total Civil Relations Caseload Disposed Disposed 6/30/84 
District 27B 

Cleveland 347 1,001 304 697 1,348 897 66.5 451 

Lincoln 168 502 142 360 670 550 82.1 120 

District Totals 515 1,503 446 1,057 2,018 1,447 71.7 571 

District 28 

Buncombe 1,207 2,848 1,082 1,766 4,055 3,052 75.2 1,003 

District 29 

Henderson 619 789 242 547 1,408 662 47.0 746 

McDowell 135 431 125 306 566 389 68.7 177 

Polk 55 117 32 85 172 135 78.5 37 

Rutherford 252 562 153 409 814 527 64.7 287 

Transylvania 170 330 120 210 500 295 59.0 205 

District Totals 1,231 2,229 672 1,557 3,460 2,008 58.0 1,452 

District 30 

Cherokee 163 202 12 190 365 199 54.5 166 

Clay 29 58 58 87 64 73.6 23 

Graham 37 80 16 64 117 77 65.8 40 

Haywood 369 693 246 447 1,062 639 60.1 423 

Jackson 156 295 100 195 451 321 71.2 130 

Macon 127 254 103 151 381 215 56.4 166 

Swain 123 160 56 104 283 141 49.8 142 

District Totals 1,004 1,742 533 1,209 2,746 1,656 44.2 1,090 

State Totals 49,127 104,675 45,636 59,039 153,802 104,789 68.1 49,013 



129 



METHODS OF DISPOSITION OF DISTRICT COURT GENERAL CIVIL 
AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES 

1983-1984 



OTHER 



CLERK 



VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL 




JURY 

.5% 



JUDGE 



The majority of civil district cases, excluding civil magis- 
trate cases, are disposed of by judges. Only 492 jury trials 



were held in district courts for civil cases during the 
1983-84 year. 



130 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF GENERAL CIVIL AND 
DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1983 - June 30, 1984 



District 1 

Camden 

Chowan 

Currituck 

Dare 

Gates 

Pasquotank 

Perquimans 

District Totals 
District 2 



Beaufort 

Hyde 

Martin 

Tyrrell 

Washington 

District Totals 

District 3 

Carteret 
Craven 
Pamlico 
Pitt 

District Totals 

District 4 

Duplin 
Jones 
Onslow 
Sampson 

District Totals 

District 5 

New Hanover 
Pender 

District Totals 

District 6 

Bertie 
Hal ifax 
Hertford 
Northampton 

District Total s 

District 7 

Edgecombe 

Nash 

Wilson 

District Totals 

District 8 

Greene 
Lenoir 
Wayne 

District Totals 









General Ci 


vil 






Domestic Re 


lations 




Total 








Voluntary 










Voluntary 




Dispositions 


Judge 


Jury 


Clerk 


Dismissal 


Other 


Judge 


Jury 


Clerk 


Dismissal 


Other 


37 


2 





3 


5 


1 


22 








4 





236 


10 


1 


30 


65 


7 


115 








5 


3 


160 


18 





8 


18 


5 


82 





1 


25 


3 


268 


39 





33 


53 


7 


111 


1 





20 


4 


82 


10 


2 


5 


9 


1 


37 








7 


1) 


472 


41 


1 


52 


74 


1 


263 





3 


32 


5 


97 


2 





8 


5 


2 


67 








8 


L : 



1,352 



508 
56 

377 
49 

286 

1,276 



670 
1,504 

103 
1,337 

3,614 



525 

100 

1,628 

786 

3,039 



3,021 
351 

3,372 



302 

834 
482 

301 

1,919 



369 
1,081 
1,103 

3,053 



121 

1,301 
2,192 

3,614 



122 



111 



398 



526 



542 
29 

571 



182 



213 



10 



14 



14 
6 

20 



13 



139 



112 



612 



250 



845 
27 

872 



267 



429 



229 



75 



467 



293 



387 
57 

444 



148 



259 



24 



48 


5 


52 


41 


11 


6 





1 


4 





41 


2 


36 


11 


11 


2 





16 


7 





14 


3 


7 


12 


22 



44 



75 


5 


104 


69 


8 


152 


3 


298 


201 


24 


4 





6 


5 


3 


167 


6 


204 


192 


9 



44 



81 


3 


71 


66 


5 


11 





9 


15 





331 


1 


76 


99 


29 


103 


2 


94 


113 


1 



35 



31 


1 


43 


10 


6 


71 


2 


57 


45 


1 


31 


2 


148 


76 


10 


49 





19 


17 


3 



20 



61 


3 


94 


62 


4 


78 


6 


174 


104 


27 


74 


4 


161 


93 


1 



32 



10 





1 


1 


4 


198 


10 


157 


106 


13 


287 


12 


266 


415 


1 



697 



774 



1,721 



1,310 



1,205 



1,963 



1? 



20 



37 



101 



32 



159 



90 



49 



72 



31 



337 





1 


8 


5 


42 








3 





266 








7 


3 


23 








1 





106 





1 


13 


108 



116 



365 


1 


1 


35 


1 


609 


2 


6 


53 


1 56 


72 





2 


5 


6 


675 





3 


66 


15 



I'M 



263 





8 


20 


8 


57 


o 





8 





966 





L2 


80 


• 34 


374 





2 


85 


10 


660 





22 


193 


54 


109 


3 


18 


71 


27 


201 








19 


10 



37 



184 





11 


12 


4 


625 


6 


6 


15 


6 


198 


2 


2 


11 


2 


198 





1 


11 


3 



15 



614 








14 


17 


622 





22 


32 


16 


727 





15 


26 


2 



35 



87 





10 


2 


6 


738 





7 


72 





1,026 


2 


21 


155 


7 



495 



22 



424 



522 



1,351 



38 



229 



13 



131 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF GENERAL CIVIL AND 
DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1983 — June 30, 1984 





Total 






General Ci 


til 






Domestic Relations 














Voluntary 










Voluntary 






Dispositions 


Judge 


Jury 


Clerk 


Dismissal 


Other 


Judge 


Jury 


Clerk 


Dismissal 


Other 


District 9 


























Frankl in 


34: 


169 





8 


68 


12 


72 










10 


3 


Granville 


345 


49 


1 


26 


43 





161 





43 




21 


1 


Person 


387 


58 


1 


46 


39 





225 





2 




16 





Vance 


508 


34 





19 


42 


4 


220 





6 




21 


162 


Warren 


408 


55 


1 


9 


15 


1 


316 


1 


1 




5 


4 



District Totals 

District 10 
Wake 

District 11 



Harnett 

Johnston 

Lee 



District Totals 
District 12 



Bladen 

Brunswick 

Columbus 

District Totals 

District 14 
Durham 

District 15A 
Alamance 

District 15B 

Chatham 
Orange 

District Total s 
District 16 



1,990 



7,858 



994 
1,655 
1,049 

3,698 



494 

691 

1,057 

2,242 
2,553 
1,599 



284 

741 

1,025 



365 



2,141 



180 
505 
163 

848 



108 



16 1,766 



9 148 
5 211 
3 292 



17 



651 



207 



1,292 



179 
235 
189 

603 



17 



123 



13 
63 

81 



994 



2,332 



412 
581 
293 

1,286 



52 



13 



6 
5 

1 

12 



59 
107 

121 

287 



246 



1/1 



24 
140 

164 



2 

2 

17 

21 



11 



142 
57 

113 

312 



527 



199 



36 
132 



93 
167 

131 

391 



311 



179 



16 
116 

132 



1 
12 

17 

40 



10 
9 

19 



171 
308 
576 

1,055 



1,324 



706 



179 
295 

474 



13 



2 
22 

24 



73 



168 



50 
80 
42 

172 



17 
37 
94 

148 



63 



94 



6 
20 

26 



170 



4 

20 

3 

27 



Cumberland 
Hoke 


5,164 
306 


404 
22 


3 




535 
56 


363 
32 


2 
7 


3,106 
82 


2 




248 
12 


457 
15 


44 
80 


District Totals 


5,470 


426 


3 


591 


395 


9 


3,188 


2 


260 


472 


124 


District 13 

























45 



187 



7 
3 

10 



Robeson 
Scotland 


2,172 
528 


203 
85 


■1 
3 


533 
61 


328 
37 


20 
9 


995 
301 


4 



7 
3 


75 
12 


3 

17 


District Totals 


2,700 


288 


7 


594 


365 


29 


1,296 


4 


10 


87 


20 


District 17A 
























Caswell 

• ngham 


223 
1,187 


19 

71 



3 


22 
174 


15 

112 






145 
723 



1 


1 
6 


8 
72 


13 
25 


District Totals 


1,410 


90 


3 


196 


127 





868 


1 


7 


80 


38 


District 17B 
























Surry 


243 

994 


19 

90 


2 
2 


23 

192 


23 
96 


9 




1 38 
464 




9 


2 
15 


23 

44 


4 
1 


District Totals 


1,147 


109 


4 


215 


119 


9 


602 





17 


67 


5 


District 18 

























Guilford 



7,505 



1,228 



31 1,546 1,247 



26 



3,142 



27 



205 



51 



132 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF GENERAL CIVIL AND 
DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1983 — June 30, 1984 





Total 
Dispositions 






General Ci 


vil 






Domestic Re 


lations 




District 19A 


Judge 


Jury 


Clerk 


Voluntary 
Dismissal 


Other 


Judge 


Jury 


Clerk 


Voluntary 
Dismissal 


Other 


Cabarrus 
Rowan 


1,348 
1,100 


144 

152 


7 
1 


165 
113 


203 
98 


5 
1 


700 
673 


1 

1 


5 
2 


90 
59 


28 




District Totals 


2,448 


296 


8 


278 


301 


6 


1,373 


2 


7 


149 


28 


District 19B 
























Montgomery 
Randol ph 


235 
922 


134 
77 



1 


23 

167 


36 
58 






39 
552 






(] 
2 


3 
42 



23 


District Total s 


1,157 


211 


1 


190 


94 





591 





? 


45 


23 


District 20 
























Anson 
Moo re 
Richmond 
Stanly 
Union 


389 
720 
481 
557 
846 


26 

136 

36 

135 

97 



4 



13 


46 

95 

51 

1 

119 


56 
84 
27 
87 
120 


3 
9 

1 

13 

6 


217 
340 
320 
274 
452 


|] 




1 


6 
4 

12 

6 


34 
40 
18 
34 
31 


1 

8 

16 

13 

1 


District Totals 


2,993 


430 


17 


312 


374 


32 


1,603 


1 


28 


157 


39 


District 21 
























Forsyth 


5,634 


721 


15 


1,119 


1,156 


32 


2,295 


4 


37 


217 


38 


District 22 
























Alexander 
Davidson 
Davie 
Iredel 1 


215 
1,398 

221 
1,243 


15 

188 

20 

131 



3 
1 
5 


22 
137 

17 
227 


15 
172 

19 

258 


1 

3 

12 

18 


144 

773 

88 

502 



3 






3 
7 
4 
5 


15 

51 
25 

86 



61 
35 
11 


District Totals 


3,077 


354 


9 


403 


464 


34 


1,507 


3 


19 


177 


107 


District 23 
























Alleghany 
Ashe 
Wilkes 
Yadkin 


141 

251 

1,154 

290 


28 

28 

179 

29 




7 
7 


8 

32 

331 

23 


6 
27 

212 
33 


18 
4 

30 



62 
137 

343 
180 


n 

1 




1 
7 




3 

20 
38 

15 


16 
2 
6 
3 


District Totals 


1,836 


264 


14 


394 


278 


52 


722 


1 


8 


76 


27 


District 24 
























Avery 

Madison 

Mitchell 

Watauga 

Yancey 


210 
162 
173 
490 
130 


30 
55 
14 
38 
15 




1 


2 


34 
2 

22 

43 

5 


17 

8 

30 

197 

12 


22 
2 

6 

4 
17 


92 
91 

63 

179 

58 





1 



1 


3 

1 
1 

4 


7 
2 

20 

24 

7 


5 
1 
15 
5 
9 


District Totals 


1,165 


152 


3 


106 


264 


51 


483 


:• 


4 


60 


35 


District 25 
























Burke 

Caldwell 

Catawba 


1,133 
1,100 
1,880 


97 
163 
122 


7 



11 


94 
218 
399 


279 
155 
120 


4 



135 


547 
498 

1,010 





3 


1 

5 
8 


101 
41 

37 


3 

20 
35 


District Totals 


4,113 


382 


18 


711 


554 


139 


2,055 


3 


14 


179 


58 


District 26 
























Mecklenburg 


11,183 


1,954 


35 


2,267 


1,794 


8 


4,934 





25 


166 





District 27A 

























Gaston 



2,584 



21E 



14 



?A9 



2011 



21 



1,747 



73 



133 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF GENERAL CIVIL AND 
DOMESTIC RELATIONS CASES IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1. 1983 - June 30, 1984 



District 27B 

Cleveland 
Lincoln 

District Totals 









G 


eneral C 


vil 






Domestic Re 


ations 




Total 










Voluntary 










Voluntary 




Dispositions 


Judge 


Jury 




Clerk 


Dismissal 


Other 


Judge 


Jury 


Clerk 


Dismissal 


Other 


897 


95 


14 




93 


106 


10 


527 


3 


6 


41 


2 


550 


66 


3 




44 


52 


2 


330 





4 


48 


1 



1,447 



161 



17 



137 



158 



12 



857 



10 



District 28 
Buncombe 



3,052 



339 



30 



360 



375 



42 



1,599 



39 



166 



95 



District 29 



Henderson 




662 


82 


1 


20 


60 


3 


459 





1 


34 


2 


McDowell 




389 


27 





49 


26 


2 


252 





8 


25 





Polk 




135 


20 





5 


13 


3 


73 





1 


14 


6 


Rutherford 




527 


5Q 


7 


36 


44 


2 


353 


1 


3 


21 


1 


Transylvania 




295 


62 


1 


11 


31 





173 








16 


1 


District Totals 


2 


,008 


250 


9 


121 


174 


10 


1,310 


1 


13 


110 


10 


District 30 


























Cherokee 




199 


5 











1 


112 


1 


28 


17 


35 


Clay 




64 


6 














33 





6 


19 





Graham 




77 


5 





2 


3 


2 


48 





1 


13 


3 


Haywood 




639 


55 


1 


126 


57 


8 


331 


3 


10 


45 


3 


Jackson 




321 


34 


1 


36 


64 


2 


156 


2 


1 


24 


1 


Macon 




215 


26 


2 


22 


20 


13 


109 





3 


5 


15 


Swain 




141 


28 


1 


13 


12 


8 


64 


1 





12 


2 


District Totals 


1 


,656 


159 


5 


199 


156 


34 


853 


7 


49 


135 


59 


State Totals 


104 


,789 


14,872 


417 


16,794 


14,147 


1,079 


50,377 


75 


868 


4,392 


1,768 



134 



LO CO CM 



*3" CM O- .-H i-H 







Q 




© 










r^ 


en 




e 
o 






H 




'17 






X 




Q. 

(A 




IT: 


P 




Q 




!•) 


O 




03 




00 


u 




<3 

M 






H 




U 




30 


U 









Ov 


>-« 




v 






« 




< 






H 








o 


Cfl 


30 






© 


5 


m 
oo 








W 


o 




.2 
•3 


ex 


X 








< 


H 


4> 








Z 


"3 

u 

(/i 




c 

M 

7. 


4J 
SX 
< 


C/3 


u. 








w 


ox 






■o 


c/> 


c 




~a 




a 


< 


3 




a 

f- 


u 


Q 






a 


c/i 


0) 








z 


o 








o 


a. 








H 








© 


< 


in 
















/\ 


tf 


O 


>-> 




o 




(19 






r- 


U 


ox 


Q 




•c 


M 


^ 


(/) 




n 


H 


■a 

c 


U 






W 


SB 


ex 
c 






s 


00 


B 




00 


o 


o 


a. 




o 





sO 


</> 




00 


Q 


ox 
c 


at 

< 




o- 


Z 


■a 








< 


c 
u 

a. 






o 
© 


J 


(/) 








n— 


V 








> 


« 




B 




MM 


U 




■a 


ex 


u 


o 






< 


N-3 


o> 








< 
a 


ox 
< 




c 
* 

7 


ex 
< 


w 










z 








ex 


w 






■ 


T3 


o 






b 


C 
a/ 

a. 


fc 










o 










cfl 










w 










u 










< 











O «3" LO *3" to O 

<J W M O 



id r-. ro ai lo 

.— 1 .—I —I i-H tO 



i— I i— I C\J 



o o o lo o o o 



lo cm *a- en cm ■— • ■— • co 






r~- LO O CO CM CM I — 

Ol fO lO lO CO 1^ Cfi 

cm ■—! cm <a- 



o id h <t o fi ui en 

.— I CM 



N is <t n cn o co co 



o o o lo o o lo o 

inCOUHDMTIrH 



niDinnoiDr- 1 to 

r — cm c^ o ko to in en 

vo en co cm n rs n to 

iH CO rt CM CM CM CM CM 



.—I •— 1 CM 



J=«C to 

J* c c 

<_> to to 

=3 +-> E 

C C +-> O -r- 

Ol TO •■- to 3 3 

T3 3 i. cu a) cr a 
E o s- S- +-> i/> s- 
10 £ 3 «3 ID ID (U 

OUODUD-D. 



■3" <fr CM ^H «3" LO 

to *d- to co en r-» 

CO CM I- I CO 



CD o o o o 



r-. o co o r^ 
*d- >s- «a- l~s 



UDO^MO 



COlOrvOMD 

cz> to r-~ ^j- oo 



>— I co to co to co 



CO *!- CM "3" to 



o o tn o tn 

■^- i— i to r-. co 
r~- cj- o co o 

CM CM LT> CO CM 



^t n en cmoi cm 

cm -a- co <a- co a^ 

tH*CMC0CO to 

CO CO CO ^3" CM <3" 



CM •— 1 



CTv tO CTv CO 

r-< co «3- r-. 
>* en r~- 



o o o o 



tCMCTlin 

to i— i ^1- CD 

CM t~i 



CM r- CO CO 
CM tO 0~1 tO 

co ai^t 



CD CD O to 



CM ■— I to CO ■— I 
CO O CO CO to 

t— I i-H CM i-H ■— < 



o<fns »a- 

I — CD O CO •— I 

to to >-H co to 

r— 1 r-< CO 



>* CO CO CM o 



to o co to en 

CM O CM CO CO 

to t— t to r-- o 

^-1 CO 



CM O-i CD CO "* 

en to cm co i— i 



^-1 CM 



"3- to O CO 

co r-» co r~» 

i— I CM i-H 



to CD O O 



CM i-H <T\ en CO 

lo en LO CM «— t 
CMHrtIM CM 



■3-ncti'* co 

to to co cm en 

rs co ^h lo *j- 

CO CO CO CO CO 



*d- n lo co en 
en lo en co cm 
«3- co LO CD 



CD to CD O LO 

lo cd en ^ cm 

cm rs to cm <3- 

CM CO CM i— I CM 



>a- to O CO IS 

■JMDO O 

en co co .— » .— i 

CO tO «=3- CM "3" 



to CD en en 

rHCOHH 

CM CO CM 



•i- u 



•I— to 



•^ 








Ul 


o 




c 


1 — 


c 


4- 






01 




-5 


91 


*-> 


!_ 


c 


to 


•o 


s_ 


1. 


tn 


11 


>l 


TO 


>> 


to 



aj 




O 




■i— 


i. 


C 


u 




t. 


0) 


0) 


•t— 




+J 


+-> 


> 




+-> 


<o 


!_ 


TO 


F 


*J 


•p- 


01 


1. 


TO 




f ) 


<-> 


<_) 


a, 


O- 





C 3 O 

•r— l/l O LO 

i — CU i — CL 

Q. c lo E 

3 O C TO 

Q ""D O OO 



r~. i — «^- 
o o ^-i 
to cm oo 



LO LO ^H 
O to CD 
CM I-H CM 



o en cm cm to 


en 


CM tO CO ^3" 


LD 


to en q- cm 


< — i 


O *3- 




O 


cn co ~h o 


<*• 


co to to 


to 


O LO 




rH 


f— 1 t-H 


CO 


CM 


CO 


LO 



O CO 

en t-~- 



co LO 
oo CM 

CM CM 



—I -3- CM 



"3- to O 
c^ to «3" 
iHCM ^~ 



to| ai 



LO ^H CD CO 

en co cm o 

— I tO CO CM 



o to o o 



O "3- CM tO LO 



cm ^j- cm i-H en 

O CO CO O —I 
co CO ^3- co en 



O CM CM CO 



o o 


o 


CM CTt tO CO 


CO LO 


CO 


CM ■— 1 ■—! 


to 


to 





•— I CO 



O O LO o o 



co q- •— I O CO 



-i to 



T3 O. O 



r— S. U. -i- 



OJ TO 0J O 



135 



m co co r-. oi lt> 



or-ai uo 
iHH co 



■— I .— I P- CX> 



t: 




H 




X 




~ 




O 




u 




H 




U 




■^ 




as 




H 




y: 


3C 


E 


a: 




o 


a 




= 




H 




Z 


"3 




u 


Gfl 


[s, 


-u 


tx 


Cfl 


B 


< 


u 

a 


U 


n 


Cfl 


-3 


Z 


v. 


C 


a. 


M 


n 


H 


— 


< 




_ 


s 


W 


U 


a; 







y: 


u 


tx 


— ■ 


< 


- 


"3 


Xj 


C 


a 


M 


S 


T 
3C 


o 


f»5 


Q 


■C 


C 


iX 


Z 


■5 


< 


u 





r~ 


^ C\J o> 


i». 


^r *d- CO 


E 


i 


CO un CM 


i — i 


en en 


c 


>£ 






«* 


_ 


1*5 








~ 










c 










a 


UT. 








£ 


>c 


<n<a-5j- 


r~ 


HUJOi 


Q 


UlCOlO 


o 


CM uo co 



o o r-~ r-~ 

ouin co 

,— I ^H ,— I CO 



un O CTv 
LO CO LT) 

ID 1-^ CO 



4* 

2 S 

C D. 

a 



kDCOO un 
coon O 

~h .— < ro 



*J- CO CTi ^h 
CO O O O 
cm cm co co 



-H — I r-H ^- 



■? * 



uo >3- ro 

.— « co ro 

.—I CM 



co o un 

r^ «3- r-^ 

r-~ o 



o O LO IT) 



IDCOiO CO 

CM CM ■— I r-~ 

cm <g- o I — 

.-H f-H CM l-H 



•— I •— I CM "S" 

c\jooi i— i 

rHClrH UD 



^-t CM 



ro •—< lo 
r--r~.o 



uo r^ co uo 

HU3 CO 
i— I i— 1 CM 



rvr-icj 

.— ! .-I <3" 

cm ro 



cnrooioco 
en en I — ro ro 

Hi-iwron 



O O O O UO 



uo r-~ co cm co 

uo r— "3" UO "* 



cm co cm co CD r-~ 



CM un r-. CO CO 
■3- «g- co o o 
ro ro ro ld r*- 



UO UO r^ CTi CM 



•— < un 



io^hco un 
«3- co .— i =a- 

f— I CM 



^J- r^ UO 

MCvJkO 
CM CM i— I 



.-H CM 



o o o o 



CO CM ■* CM 



.— I t-H CO 



o co un ro 



(\INO CTi 

un >3- r-i CD 

.—I r-l ro 



O r-- 
r~- ro 
co 



UD i— 1 1 — 


■* 


CO CD 


CO r-- cm 


CO 


un i — i 


un ■— i uo 


CO 


r-- cm 



o i-n 

r—i un 
co un 



co un un 

h in i— i 

CM i— I CM 



^r un o~i 


CO 


*3" UO 


CTt un «^j- 


en 


UO o 


CMOO 


UO 


.— i to 



^r in <zt ro 

r-^ CTi *s- .-< 
.— i ro 



o <-< o 


t—i 


o 


uo co r^ 


UD 


«3- 


ro ^3- un 


ro 


un 



CTi CTi un 

■tlOO 



CM CM CO 


r~- 


\-n co 


co 


O -— \ CTi 


O i-l o 


T-i 


CTi t— \ 


o 


CM «* 00 



i—( CM 



>— I I— ( «d" 



O 

uo 



U "3 

— ^ 

Z 

w 

- 
c 

Efl 

w 



■5-oai 
CTiON 
<3- •* -3- 



•^- CTi CM UD 

CTi O UD CM 

ud ro r-~- CTi 

^O \J^ ID LT> 



co ud un 
O UD O 
r-^ uo CO 



u o *-> 

Cu jc; i/> c/i 

CTi Ufl i — •>- 

"O (0 •<- Q 



ro >— I i— I O 



CO CO CD --I 

CM UD CTi CO 

*3- r~- CM 



CJ 

ai !_ Z 

C •>- 01 +-> 

a; o c: w 

aj c >, 'n 

S- OJ fC CD 

CJ3 _J 3 



o o o o un 



co r-» cm •—! ^a- "d- 

■* COrvO ID CO 

OlPJOSN "3" 

CM CM CM CM CM CM 



un i — i un ud o 
un r— uo ■— i co 
i— i •— < •— I CM 



-^ > o cu co 
c c: in u i- 



i- i- 01 

li- OCu 



s- c s- ■<- 



o 
co 



O un o O 



un un r-^ 



00 


co cm un 


CO 


OC1H 


«* 


ro un ^ 



S- JZ 0} ■!- CO 

rO O CU O *r- 



uo ri 

«3- CM 
CM CM 



ro <=}- 

"* r-l 

ro ■* 



O r-H 



E ^ ■- 

=3 O uD 



UD «a- CO UD 

CO CD un CTi 

ro >=f I s * en 

HMH t-H 



^h r^ r^ 

^}- UO CM 

•-< >a- ■* 



e 


s 


JD 


ai 


UO 


r- 


■a 


c: 


3 


rn 


-J 






S_ 


O 


CO 


CO 


<_> 



•i— U0 



UD 
CO 



O 
00 



136 



A 



"* i— 1 LO 



CM CTi r— I 



H 

« 

O 

u 

H 
U 

5 

H 

r/) "» 
►3 °? 

Q 8 

W 2 
H £ 

Z « 



c/3 


u. 


w 


ox 


c/5 


c 


< 


3 


U 


Q 


c/) 


■o 

4l 


z 





o 


o. 

09 


H 


Q 


< 


41 
CM 






a: 







iM 


u 


0> 

ex 


MM 


<f 


H 


■n 


C0 


C 


W 


cu 


§ 


T 

90 


o 


O 


Q 


NO 


Q 


ex 
c 


Z 


^3 


< 


4« 




0. 


J 


x 




0* 


> 


OS 




U 


u 


c— 
o 


J 


in 

0* 


< 

as 


ox 

< 


w 




z 




w 




o 




ta 




O 




GO 




W 




o 




< 





a < 
2 



2 < 



T3 
_ 4,1 

2 S 
o a 
H .SB 

Q 



co 



o 
co 



H 5 



CTi r^ CO 



CO .-H 

cn r— 



o co en 

CM .-H co 



^j- ,-H 

co <a- 
cm r^ 



o o r~. 
.-i .-i co 
co *3r co 



r«- en 
r-» co 

CO LO 



r*N c\j o~i 



(O 03 

-C s- 
c_> O 



CO LO CTt 
LO CM CD 

i-H CM i-H 



CM CO 
r-- CM 
I— < LO 



P» CO 


LO 


•* cr. 


CD «d- 


i — I 


CM CM 


t — 1 


CM 


r-H. 



CO O CO 
CTi <!(• CO 
r— I CM 



CO >* 
CO LO 



O O 



^" LO 
CM CM 



CO CO CD 
CTv I — CD 
CO --H O 



C C -I- 



cd r-- 


ro 


en cm 


^H 


co en 


ro 


CM i— 1 


«3" 


i — i 


C\J 


1 — 1 


1 — 1 



r-» cr> 


CO 


LT> CTt 


.-h cr> 




ro r-. 


CO CM 


CD 


•—t r-~ 



ro r-~ o 
CM co — I 
CM r— I "St 



lo cm r — 



CD CX* CO 

rois f— ( 

i-H CM 



O CD 

r-. cm 



^j- CO 
«3- CO 
.-H LT) 



CD LO CD 



CO =d" I — 
^- O *3" 

CM CTi i— I 



CTi LT) i— I 
00 *d" CO 
rHM CM 



co — < 

O i-H 
— I CO 



I— Ol -i- <_> 

r— C S- -i- 

<D -I- +-> i. 

3 -* i/i ■(-> 

in U n- i/i 

ro O Q t- 



O S- 
+-> Z3 
CO CO 



CD 1 — 


ro 


LO CD 


CD CM 


en 


^3" CO 


r-H i-H 


CM 


r-H 



CM CO 
CM I — 

i~^ r-. 



O O .—I 



•— I i— ( CM 



00 CO 

r-. >g- 



CD co 
LT) r-H 
CM CM 



r-~ co en 

r-^ lo uo 

rjN O 

CM ^H CM 



CM CO 

cm ro 
r-~ lo 



-r— t/1 



CO <Ti CM 



r^ cd 


ro 


*3- CO 


CD ro 


O 


<* q- 


i — i . — i 


ro 





O CTi 


CTi 


CTi rO 


^H CM 


ro 


CO CD 


i — 1 . — 1 


CM 





—l CXI 



m cti co 



<3" ^H LO 
OJ CO LO 



ro r-i n en en cr> 
ncNjq-oo •— i 



HCONCOO 
(\J CP> ro ^3- <X> 
cxi ro ro ro lo 



O LT) O O CO 



«^j- cn r-- cr> ■—< 



r-H CTi 

O i-H 
CM ^-1 


"3- 

CO 


CD CO 

«* o 

CM r-H 


CO 

ro 


nococnoi 
co cm r^ ro ro 

CM CM i-H i-H i-H 


cr; 


CO o 
•3- o 

CO i-H 


co 


LO CM 
ro CM 
CM CT. 


LO 


fflOHMO 
CO CM CO LO ^3" 

ro r~. ^)- in CO 


ro 

a 

C3~. 



ro «— t .— < r-- cxi <^- 
cxi co •— < ^ *=r cxi 

r-H ^H ^3" 






O O LO c o 

CTi CTi U^ LO CO 

«3- r^ <T< CO ro 

HH<^MOcJ 



cn co co co ^ 
r-* r^ ld <t> ro 
cxi cxi r-* ro ro 



lo r-- exj cr> ■— « 
ro cr> o o LO 
^-i <3- CO <^3" UO 



E a. ■»- u 

en o +-> s- 

+-» T3 i/) -M | 

C C 'f- co. 



o 







o 


>, 




c 


CD 






c_ 


o 


1_ 


-L_ 


c 


o 


CA 


n 


u 


m 




r 


r 




4-' 


c 


=1 


^ 


C£ 


iyi 


_> 



137 



i-H CO CM ID i— I 

.— I C\J 



c^ "3- "3- co <3- 



s. 








•c 


- 




~ 






t: 








IT 


3 











O 




a 




5C 


u 










- 




U 




JC 


u 








9 


— 




ti 






•s 




< 






H 








a 

9 


y: 








= 


2 
* 


r*3 

9> 




- 


Etf 


- 


la 




- 

- 


< 


H 


> 









in co >g- co 


m 


N loi^iro 


^H 


cm cm p^ co in 


Ol 


CM CTl r-H 


•-H CM CM 00 


«* 


CM CM 


lO 


rt i-H rt 00 


CM 


HIDO 



in II 

— ox 

X .5 

< = 

Z S 

o l 

H ° 

< % 

O J 

-J ^ 

Q £ 



> 8 



U "s 



2 » 



■JOMrO Cn 

,— I •— C CO 



CO rH ID I — CM 
■-H Cn CM <3" 00 

.-h .-h co 



r~- in T en 
id r^cg q- 

h(Ohn 



o o o o 



irxvioin co 

cn r— i in CM o-> 

cnmq-iD ■3" 

.— I CM i— I —I 



mcort ro 
.-h cn CM "3" 

CM CO CM CM 



in co <3- CO 



«3- en co «a- in 
■— i r-. co o co 

^H CM 



o o o o 



CM <3" O Cn f-. 
CM •— I cn CM CO 

rtrtWH ^H 



i-H CM 



o in cm co 
en co co i — 

rt COrH 



o o o in 



I-H i-HJ «* O 

<3- in in cn 

r-< O0 rHC\J 



OOWN CM 



i— i — i m t— i en 



a 


in co i— i in 


CI 


O i — *3- cn 


00 


co in in CO 


r j 


cm cm in in 


CT 


. — i i — i 


-r 


• — i 



r-H CM 



O in o in 



i-H CM 



id co CO i-h r~. 

Hoionco 

i-H iHCvJ 



o o o o in 



cn o to -3- O i-h 
co co in CO >3- cn 

CM CM i-H i-H i-H i-H 



o cm co o o 
i-h in c- en co 

CM i-H i-H 13" r-H 



un o o o co o 

nncriMM CO 

rHC-COCOr-l O 

i-H i— I CM i-H 



cm cn >3- in 
co -3- in co 

. — l . — 1 CO 



o in 13- cn 
co in co r~- 

i-H CM -3" 



co r-^ cm 

r^ a\ 10 

C- ID CM 



cm id cn r-~ 



CO O O CO 

CO O CO i-H 

-H^CO i-H 

,-H I-H I-H *J- 



Hinin i—t 
in in m i — 

i-H CM 



o 
o 



•3- O 
00 "3- 
in co 



I s - o 

cn in 
co in 



i-H i-H CM 



i— I i-H CM 



f*» i-H CO 

cn i-h o 



cn ^t- cn 
co CO "3- 

CM CM i-H 



i-H CM 



o 

r- 

o 



o 

CM 

CO 






CI 



C^ CO <3" CM 0~> 

C- CM CO CO UD 

rflOIDH CM 

CM i-H CO CM CM 



i-h o cm io in 

co iniHio ^h 

CO CM «3" i-H 



+-> 


•I— 


c 


l/> 




. — 


- 


- 


r0 


t! 


">> 


Q) 


/ 


~ 


X 






a 


(. 


A 


'./ 


^ 


j- 


'■> 


'-I 






— . 


~. 




^_ 


a 


=t 


^^ 


a 


*— 



«3 CM O CM CO 

ID CM in CM CT> 

CM i-H CM CO in 

i-H CM ^H CM i-H 



co -3- in CO o 
*d- c~. i-h ^h in 

ro ■—< in 



^Tr 




CD 


-,— 


1/ 


!U 


-^ 


& 


1— 


jr 


. — 


•j 




</) 




m 


<<3 


>- 



^h r- id co cn <3- 

co co id ^3- cn c~ 

id cm lo in co co 

CM CO i-H r-H CO CM 



ID CO 00 

r-H "3" i-D 

CO i-H CO 

"3- "3- CM 



OMD 
CO CM 00 

co in co 



c 


, — 


fO 




-,— 


u 




f— 


nj 


■r— 


o 


(ij 


Ti 


>> 


S- 






01 


XJ 


'_ 


>, <s> 


jc 


3 


aj 


+-> 


S- 


ai 


i 


i 


J^ 


S_ ■!- 


o 


<0 


cj 


l/l 


+-' 


_^ 


a 


<Tj 


l/l 


CD "O 


+-> 


4J 


c 




l/> 


S- 




+J 




> ia 




m 


to 


Q 




3 


(0 


fO 


hj 


cc s: 


s 


s 


>- 




(' > 


CO 


l_> 


l_) 





cn in co 



■-H o i-H 

in cm c^ 

«3* i-h in 



to o +J 

> U l/> 

cu c ■■- 



138 



o r-« c\j »jo co O 



r-. i-h 



Cfl 




H 




X 




P 




o 




u 




H 




u 




»M^ 




« 




H 




c/3 


T 

90 





00 




Os 


w 




M 


u. 

n 


H 


a* 


Z 


"5 


m 


in 






c/5 


u. 


w 


0X1 


t/) 


c 


< 


3 


U 


Q 


cr 


•a 


Z 





o 


u. 




Q 


< 


a; 




U 


a 


O 




</> 


u 


0) 

on 


« 


<r 


H 


■n 


(/) 


c 


W 


« 


s 


T 

00 


o 


© 


Q 


NO 


Q 


on 
c 


Z 


■a 


< 


u 




a. 


hJ 


l/i 


N— < 


<u 


> 


« 


M 


u 


u 


O 


J 




< 


ex 

< 


u 




z 




w 




o 




u, 




o 




cfl 




w 




o 




< 





ajoi ■a-icco lo 

CTt LO (^ LO LO LO 

mw co ■— i co 



o o o o o 



MONCOm 



cm en lo i — lo co 
lo CO co <nj en o 
lo co i— i in csj o 



co CO r~- co r-» ro 

co ■-! lo lo co 



.5 •- 



o o o o o lo 





V 














n 




Ul 




t-) 


CM 


cn 


cn 


v 


< 


en 


m 


lo 


en 


lo 


r-. 


s 




ro 


1—1 


r_ ' 


1—1 


CM 


CM 


c 




co 


o 

CM 


co 


en 


cn 

lo 


cn 


s 


< 


lo 


r». 


O 


LO 


CM 


l>N 




•* 


CM 


ro 


CM 


ro 


CO 




U) 






























a 




LO 


r^ 


i — 


r^ 


in 


cm 




r- 


■5 


Kt 


r^ 


m 


co 


C) 


IT) 


c 


r» 


. — i 




CM 


CM 


«* 



T3 c 

C S_ ro 

Or- O > 

on i — M- i — 
i- 0) S- >> 

ill 3 01 VI 

x> o -^ -c c 

C Q r — +-> (T3 
<U U O C3 s_ 

I ZQ. CtH 



O^-NOflCOlO CO 

cn co co cn «3- co r-- o 

co ■— i i— i cn 



ooooooo <-n 



LO O O LO LO LO CO LO 

CO CO LO cn i— I LTl LT) CO 

t— I LD LT) r-~ ^T CM CTl LO 

CM. — 1 ■ — I I— IHr- 1 i— I I— I 



cn «^- r^ cn .— i LCi ^h 

i— I LO CO CM •-< 



io m oi cm n oi ^f co 

CM CTl CM CM CO I— I 



LO O LO O O LT) O 



moioiuiOHCO 

LO O LO LO LO *3" CO 

nrtHWHMM 



cn co o lo -=3- co cm co 

lo lo co co o cn lo «a- 

n o H cm ro ^t lO LO 

CO CM CM CO CM "* *J- CO 



LO CO O CO O LO CM 
LD CM "3" CM CO LO *J- 



S- >,J= 
CJJ <t> ro 
J= i— t- 
<_><_> C3 



13 O W C C 



o 

LO 

co 



>> <_> o n3 •■- 
fO ro fO 3 Q 



139 



CIVIL MAGISTRATE FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS IN THE 

DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1983 - June 30, 1984 

Filings Dispositions Filings 



District 1 




Camden 

Chowan 

Currituck 

Dare 

Gates 

Pasquotank 

Perquimans 


99 

630 
238 
419 
202 
843 
311 


District Totals 


2,742 


District 2 




Beaufort 

Hyde 

Martin 

Tyrrell 

Washington 


1,373 

78 

943 

156 

500 


District Totals 


3,050 


District 3 




Carteret 

Craven 
Pamlico 

Pitt 


1,509 

2,161 

256 

2,703 


District Totals 


6,629 


District 4 




Dupl in 
Jones 
Onslow 
Sampson 


1,536 

173 

2,526 

1,539 


District Totals 


5,774 


District 5 




Hew Hanover 
Pender 


3,151 
530 


District Totals 


3,681 


District 6 




Bertie 
Hal ifax 
Hertford 
Northampton 


781 

1,480 

596 

598 


District Totals 


3,455 


District 7 




Edgecombe 

Nash 

Wilson 


4,772 
3,621 
2,812 


District Totals 


11,205 


District 8 




Greene 
Lenoir 


317 
2,597 
2,186 


District Totals 


5,100 



07 
637 
233 
444 
247 
853 
320 

2,831 



1,315 

71 

985 

145 

433 

2,949 



1,368 

2,219 

276 

2,710 

6,573 



1,551 

177 

2,527 

1,561 

5,816 



3,097 
531 

3,628 



787 

1,549 

640 

581 

3,557 



4,688 
4,360 
2,739 

11,787 



352 
2,665 
2,120 

5,137 



District 9 

Frankl in 

Granville 

Person 

Vance 

Warren 

District Totals 

District 10 
Wake 

District 11 

Harnett 

Johnston 

Lee 

District Totals 



District 12 

Cumberland 
Hoke 

District Totals 

District 13 

Bladen 

Brunswick 

Columbus 

District Totals 

District 14 
Durham 

District 15A 
Alamance 

District 15B 



791 
1,274 

949 
2,283 

561 

5,858 



9,724 



1,307 

1,874 

837 

4,018 



9,353 
585 

9,938 



2,434 
1,034 
1,913 

5,381 



13,379 



2,955 



Chatham 
Orange 


706 
1,430 


District Totals 


2,136 


District 16 




Robeson 
Scotland 


6,776 
1,896 


District Totals 


8,672 


District 17A 




Caswell 
Rockingham 


334 
2,266 


District Totals 


2,600 


District 17B 




Stokes 
Surry 


445 
1,842 


District Totals 


2,287 



Dispositions 



808 
1,241 

865 
2,258 

584 



5,756 



9,322 



1,362 

1,809 

790 

3,961 



9,390 
599 

9,989 



2,334 

526 

1,924 

4,784 



12,970 



2,939 



711 
1,369 

2,080 



6,544 
1,793 

8,337 



311 
2,361 

2,672 



457 
2,059 

2,516 



140 



CIVIL MAGISTRATE FILINGS AND DISPOSITIONS IN THE 

DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1983 — June 30, 1984 

Filings Dispositions 



District 18 
Guilford 



Greensboro 
High Point 


8,382 
3,197 


District Totals 


11,579 


District 19A 




Cabarrus 
Rowan 


1,408 
2,118 


District Totals 


3,526 


District 19B 




Montgomery 
Randolph 


1,178 
1,257 


District Totals 


2,435 


District 20 




Anson 

Moore 

Richmond 

Stanly 

Union 


639 
1,388 
1,213 
1,327 
1,373 


District Totals 


5,940 


District 21 




Forsyth 


8,914 


District 22 




Alexander 
Davidson 
Davie 
Iredell 


364 
3,222 

381 
2,058 


District Totals 


6,025 


District 23 




Alleghany 
Ashe 
Wilkes 
Yadkin 


316 

185 

1,699 

718 


District Totals 


2,918 


District 24 





Avery 

Madison 

Mitchell 

Watauga 

Yancey 

District Totals 



193 
107 
115 
349 
136 

900 



8,014 
3,111 

11,125 



1,354 
2,148 

3,502 



1,013 
1,243 

2,256 



677 
1,398 
1,033 
1,295 
1,349 

5,752 



8,785 



358 
3,163 

383 
1,988 

5,892 



332 

244 

1,688 

731 

2,995 



205 
132 
111 
386 
132 

966 





Filings 


Dispositions 


District 25 






Burke 

Caldwell 

Catawba 


1,310 
1,859 
2,320 


1,301 
1,954 
2,287 


District Totals 


5,489 


5,542 


District 26 






Mecklenburg 


21,802 


23,198 


District 27A 






Gaston 


3,971 


4,060 


District 27B 






Cleveland 
Lincoln 


2,798 
796 


2,786 
812 


District Totals 


3,594 


3,598 


District 28 






Buncombe 


3,807 


4,031 


District 29 






Henderson 
McDowel 1 
Polk 

Rutherford 
Transylvania 


548 
385 
205 
1,253 
481 


499 
414 
209 
1,649 
443 


District Totals 


2,872 


3,214 


District 30 






Cherokee 

Clay 

Graham 

Haywood 

Jackson 

Macon 

Swa i n 


257 
70 
51 
807 
272 
402 
106 


250 

48 

51 

772 

251 

389 

98 


District Totals 


1,965 


1,859 




Total Filed 


Total Disposed 


State Totals 


194,321 


194,379 



141 



OFFENSES AND CONDITIONS ALLEGED IN JUVENILE 
PETITIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1983 — June 30, 1984 











OFFENSES 








CONDITIONS 












Di 


■linquent 




I 


ndiscipl 


ned 


Dependent Neglected 


Abused 


Grand 
Total 


Children 
Before 


District 1 


Capital 


Other 
Felony 


Misde- 
meanor 


Total 


Truancy 


Other 


Total 


Court For 
First Time 


Camden 

Chowan 

Currituck 

Dare 

Gates 

Pasquotank 

Perquimans 












3 

4 

4 

12 



23 

21 


2 

23 
14 
10 
3 
78 
14 


5 
27 
18 

22 
3 

101 
35 





1 













1 








1 




1 





5 
3 


3 



1 

4 

12 

2 



10 

2 


1 
1 
9 
1 

7 
1 


7 

37 
43 
25 
3 
122 
38 


6 
17 
23 
23 

3 
48 
11 


District Totals 





b7 


144 


211 


1 


1 


2 


11 


31 


20 


275 


131 


District 2 


























Beaufort 
Hyde 
Martin 
Tyrrel 1 
Washington 









27 
3 

13 
2 

5 


31 

10 

19 

3 

22 


58 

13 

32 

5 

27 


3 




1 




1 







3 
1 



1 


7 
2 
2 




5 
13 

14 

5 


4 
3 







77 
32 

48 

5 

33 


42 
20 
36 
5 
26 


District Totals 





50 


85 


135 


4 


i 


5 


11 


37 


7 


195 


129 


District 3 


























Carteret 
Craven 
Paml ico 
Pitt 








17 

22 



29 


53 

79 

6 

107 


70 

111 

6 

136 



3 




2 

15 
1 

10 


2 

18 
1 

in 


17 

23 



17 


14 

15 



6 


5 
5 
2 
2 


108 

172 

9 

171 


55 

93 

9 

74 


District Totals 





78 


245 


323 


3 


28 


31 


57 


35 


14 


460 


231 


District 4 


























Dupl in 
Jones 
Onslow 
Sampson 









3 
3 

58 
16 


23 


68 

99 


26 

3 

126 

115 


1 

3 



6 



6 

13 


7 



9 

13 


4 

1 

18 

16 


3 

2 

34 

21 






22 

5 


40 

6 

209 

170 


33 

5 

124 

57 


District Totals 





80 


190 


270 


4 


25 


29 


39 


60 


27 


425 


219 


District 5 


























New Hanover 
Pender 






236 
37 


255 
30 


491 
67 


15 

1 


72 
1 


87 
2 


5 
2 


26 
3 


5 
2 


614 
76 


213 
28 


District Totals 





273 


285 


558 


16 


73 


89 


7 


29 


7 


690 


241 


District 6 


























Bertie 
Halifax 
Hertford 
Northampton 







□ 


1 

74 
5 
2 


14 
35 

;i 

if, 


15 

109 
36 
18 



2 





1 
2 




1 
4 




2 
6 

17 



13 

14 

8 

4 



4 
3 
3 


31 
137 

64 
25 


31 
66 
43 
18 


District Totals 





82 


96 


178 


2 


3 


5 


25 


39 


10 


257 


158 


District 7 


























Edgecombe 

Nash 

Wilson 




1 




116 
35 
69 


125 

83 

120 


241 
119 
189 


4 

2 


7 
6 
5 


11 
6 
7 


18 

2't 
15 


8 
23 
18 


1 

4 

12 


279 
181 
241 


116 
94 
99 


District Totals 


1 


220 


328 


549 


6 


18 


24 


62 


49 


17 


701 


309 


District 3 


























Lenoir 









58 
37 


23 
173 

73 


231 

110 







4 

17 

9 


4 

17 

9 


2 

10 
29 


14 
29 
71 




5 

12 


43 
292 
231 


32 

98 

109 


District Totals 





95 


269 


364 





30 


30 


41 


114 


17 


566 


239 



142 



OFFENSES AND CONDITIONS ALLEGED IN JUVENILE 
PETITIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1983 — June 30, 1984 











OFFENSES 








CONDITIONS 












Delinquent 






Undisciplined 




Dependent 


Neglected Abused 


Grand 
Total 


Children 
Before 


District 9 


Capital 


Other 
Felony 


Misde- 
meanor 


Total 


Truancy 


Other Total 


Court For 
First Time 


Franklin 
Granvil le 
Person 
Vance 
Warren 







II 


8 

39 



45 
7 


37 

106 
5 

101 
2 


45 
144 

5 
146 

9 


1 

2 

5 
2 


7 

4 

3 

15 

2 


8 

6 
3 

20 
4 


3 

6 

3 

18 

1 


12 

10 

13 

13 




2 
3 
3 
8 



70 

169 

27 

205 

14 


37 
77 
25 
55 
10 



District Totals 



99 



250 



349 



10 



31 



41 



31 



48 



16 



485 



204 



District 10 
Wake 

District 11 

Harnett 

Johnston 

Lee 

District Totals 



87 



121 



200 



200 



288 



13 



20 



31 



30 



23 



322 



14 



27 



41 



19 



30 



392 



421 



319 






52 


80 


132 


9 


7 


16 


4 


12 


5 


169 


66 


1 


61 


51 


113 


4 


11 


15 


6 


12 


3 


149 


81 





8 


69 


77 


1 


9 


10 


9 


6 


1 


103 


88 



235 



District 12 

Cumberland 
Hoke 

District Totals 






361 


422 


733 


26 


272 


298 


87 


179 


73 


1,420 


600 





9 


54 


63 


4 


10 


14 


11 


5 


5 


98 


57 



370 



476 



846 



30 



282 



312 



93 



78 



1,518 



657 



District 13 

Bladen 

Brunswick 

Columbus 

District Totals 






10 


15 


25 


1 


4 


5 


5 


4 


2 


41 


?', 


1 


17 


22 


40 


5 


16 


21 


3 


12 


2 


78 


59 





23 


34 


57 


in 


7 


17 


14 


28 


5 


121 


71 



50 



71 



122 



16 



27 



43 



22 



44 



240 



155 



District 14 



Durham 




District 


15A 


Alamance 




District 


15B 



Chatham 
Orange 

District Totals 



90 



29 



5 
29 

34 



395 



119 



50 
73 

123 



485 



148 



55 

102 

157 



12 



25 



13 



30 



39 



14 



8 7 



19 



12 
15 

27 



14 



638 



220 



79 
131 

210 



178 



115 



38 
102 

140 



District 16 

Robeson 
Scotland 

District Total s 
District 17A 



Guilford 



1 


118 


125 


244 


10 


31 


41 





39 


85 


124 





1 


1 



157 



210 



368 



10 



32 



42 



49 
13 

62 



55 
26 



26 
2 

28 



415 

l-,6 

581 



191 



523 



714 



55 



74 



129 



100 



67 



28 



1,038 



189 
85 

274 



Caswel 1 





2 


3 


5 





1 


1 


3 


5 


2 


16 


16 


Rockingham 





85 


98 


183 





12 


12 


15 


10 


8 


228 


73 


District Totals 





87 


101 


188 





13 


13 


18 


15 


10 


244 


89 


District 17B 


























Stokes 


1 


8 


22 


31 


11 


7 


18 


2 


2 


3 


56 


4 1 


Surry 





61 


51 


112 


7 


6 


13 


4 


24 


2 


155 


76 


District Totals 


1 


69 


73 


143 


18 


13 


31 


6 


26 


5 


211 


116 


District 18 



























633 



143 



OFFENSES AND CONDITIONS ALLEGED IN JUVENILE 
PETITIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1983 — June 30, 1984 











OFFENSES 








CONDITIONS 












Del 


nquent 






Undisciplined 


Dependent Neglected Abused 


Grand 
Total 


Children 
Before 


District 19A 


Capital 


Other 
Felon> 


Misde- 
meanor 


Total 


Truanc 


y Other 


Total 


Court For 
First Time 


Cabarrus 
Rowan 






41 
94 


65 

244 


106 
338 


2 

133 


7 
81 


9 

214 


10 
228 


13 
92 


2 
32 


140 
904 


86 
128 


District Totals 





135 


309 


444 


135 


88 


223 


238 


105 


34 


1,044 


214 


District 19B 


























Montgomery 
Randolph 






4 
68 


9 

91 


13 

159 



10 


4 
48 


4 
58 


2 
24 


14 
28 


1 
9 


34 

278 


34 
139 


District Totals 





:: 


100 


172 


K) 


52 


62 


26 


42 


10 


312 


173 


District 20 


























Anson 
Moore 

Stanly 
Union 








(] 


82 
60 
107 
16 
49 


23 
103 
69 
29 
93 


105 

163 

176 

45 

14? 



1 
1 


1 



1 
4 
2 
15 



2 
5 
2 
16 



3 


4 
7 


10 

121 

31 

2 

90 


2 
3 

9 
6 

44 


117 
292 
221 
59 
299 


33 
66 
64 
31 
149 



District Totals 

District 21 
Forsyth 

District 22 

Alexander 
Davidson 
Davie 
I redel 1 

District Totals 

District 23 

Alleghany 
Ashe 
Wi 1 kes 
Yadkin 

District Totals 

District 24 

Avery 

Madison 

Mitchell 

Watauga 

Yancey 

District Totals 

District 25 

Burke 

Caldwell 

Catawba 

District Totals 

ct 26 
Mecklenburg 

District 27A 
Gaston 

District 27B 

Cleveland 
Lincoln 

strict Totals 



314 



115 



81 



11 
4 
4 
6 
3 

28 



100 



417 



105 



26 
35 

61 



317 



542 



L60 



3 

1 

13 

24 

3 

14 



230 



532 



34? 



0/ 
37 

134 



631 



457 



40 



2? 



90 



25 



130 



14 



11 



254 



69 



64 



13 



242 



14 

7 

17 

30 

6 

74 



77 



44 



4 

7 

1 

1 

13 



121 



5 

2 
7 
2 

4 

20 



24 



6 
12 

5 
6 


20 



172 



9 

15 
3 
2 
4 

33 



37 



1 
3 
5 
6 
3 

18 






36 


41 


77 


10 


34 


44 





16 


113 


120 


40 


84 


124 





48 


76 


124 


12 


40 


52 



330 



949 



447 



123 
72 

195 



62 



15 



158 



124 



32 



220 



139 



32 



5 




9 
8 


14 
8 


5 


1/ 


22 



94 
17 

17 

23 
8 

31 



87 



241 



62 



13 
10 

23 



33 



42 



13 



/ 
7 

14 



680 



596 



35 
39 
37 

46 
17 

174 



7 


19 


10 


157 


67 


33 


13 


366 


20 


35 


ID 


241 



764 



1,: 



571 



180 

105 

285 



343 



502 






5 


10 


15 





6 


6 


1 


8 


2 


32 


24 





34 


100 


184 





52 


52 


35 


40 


11 


322 


154 








46 


52 


4 


8 


12 


3 


3 


2 


72 


26 


3 


5 


111 


119 


6 


31 


37 


9 


23 


2 


190 


103 


3 


50 


317 


370 


10 


97 


107 


48 


74 


17 


616 


307 





25 


9 


34 





2 


2 





2 


2 


40 


25 





12 


5 


17 


12 


14 


26 


5 


22 


3 


73 


50 


1 


16 


57 


74 


56 


16 


72 


12 


113 


18 


289 


95 





28 


89 


11/ 


9 


12 


21 


7 


35 


14 


194 


49 



219 



30 
22 
20 

41 
17 

130 



70 

95 

140 

305 



655 



335 



108 
52 

160 



144 



District 28 
Buncombe 

District 29 

Henderson 

McDowell 

Polk 

Rutherford 

Transylvania 

District Totals 

District 30 

Cherokee 

Clay 

Graham 

Haywood 

Jackson 

Macon 

Swa i n 

District Totals 
State Totals 



OFFENSES AND CONDITIONS ALLEGED IN JUVENILE 
PETITIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1983 — June 30, 1984 









OFFENSES 










Delinquent 






Undisciplined 




Capital 


Other 
Felony 


Misde- 
meanor 


Total 


Truancy 


Other 


Total 


1 


188 


263 


452 


23 


180 


203 









5 

8 

6 

19 

19 


33 

32 

5 

41 

19 


38 
40 
11 
60 
38 


21 
22 

8 
31 

5 


11 
22 


22 

1 


32 
44 

8 
53 

6 



57 



7 

1 
3 
2 
2 

14 




130 













29 68 97 

13 4,081 7,671 11,765 



13 
2 

1 
11 
13 

11 
17 



187 



20 
3 

4 
13 
15 
25 
17 



87 



56 



2 




12 
5 
1 
8 



143 



2 



3 

15 

8 

1 



CONDITIONS 
Dependent Neglected Abused 



54 



7 
7 
6 
33 
7 

60 



51 



11 
28 
2 
47 
19 

107 



14 

4 
8 
2 
6 

6 

26 



Grand 
Total 

774 



92 

127 

29 

199 
76 

523 



35 
9 
9 
42 
37 
30 
38 



9 28 37 

38 1,733 2,421 



16 36 
1,390 2,408 



14 200 
698 18,682 



Children 
Before 

Court For 
First Time 

246 



53 
75 
29 
68 

39 

264 



25 
9 
9 
41 
26 
29 
38 

177 
8,802 



145 



— CSJ 



lo i — t-H «a- oo 

I-H CM CM ^j- o 

cm co ro 01 



.— i .— i o ~-< o lo .— i cn 



■3- oo o o o r^ 



LO C\J .—I LO 00 



o o ur> 00 00 



lo cm r — 



oroidrt cm 



O o cm O o O O csj 



o 00 o o o 00 



lo .-< o •— 1 00 



0000 o 



00 o 



o o CO CNJ LO 



<— IrHCCr- * O LO r— I I 



«3" O O O O q- 



cn t— 1 1— 1 rj- lo 



lo csj r». 



o co csj cm r~- 



H<incMONM cn 



LO CO LO O CM LO 



OOCMOOOO CM 



LO O — I f» 



HCOH5f ^j- 



OONH CO 



00 o 



OOOISP1 CO 



u 



W s: 

> H 

Cf3 U © 

Jen • 






OS 

- 
< 



z = 






HU rtNONM I — 



OLOCMOOLOO CM 



OOOOOOO O 



OLOCMOOLOO CM 



O O •— 1 O O O O <-* 



O O >-i O O O O •-* 



O O O O O O O O 



LO CM O O . 



r-l O O CO 



O^HOOO i-H 



LD O •— I O O r~ 



i-H I-H O O i-H CO 



O .— 1 O O O i-i 



O CD O 1— 1 CM 



^1- cm O co en 



hoion cm 



CO i— I CSJ CO M- 



HHOIN C^ 



cm o en lo r-. 



r^ o r~~ r-* r-\ 



^3- O CO LO CM 



CO O «3" CM CT1 



lo co cn 



LO cm r». 



CO LO 1— 1 O CTl 



LO CM r^ 



00 

co 



O i-H i-H .-H CO 



■HC0*H CO 



Hinoo lo 



1— t LO O O LO 



O O CD O O 



^H CM 



lo o o 00 cn »a- 



00 CO CO O •— 1 LO 



^r o~i lo o~» co 

NCflrHN .—I 
1— I 1— I CM LO 



H CO^tLO CO 
CM •— I CT\ CO 



rHMCOLO LO 



r- I LO I — 

cn lo lo 



ra <0 u 



= •*- <_> 



0J "3 •— L0 3 =3 

■O 3 L. jj iu c-G" 

E O i- 1- -*-* LO t_ 

i; £ 3 <B IC >0 HJ 

uuuoua.^ 









c 











+-> 






+J 


L_ 






1— cn 


O 






1 — c 


L>- 




■r— 


O) •!- 


=3 


If 


-4-> 


1- _c 


fC 


■0 


4- 


S_ L0 


0J 


-~ 


iO 


>-, <D 


CO 


JL 


> 


1— 3 



CD 


01 


•1— 




+-> 


> 




+■> 


t- 


(0 


■- 


+J 


IU 


s_ 


(0 




O 





O- 


Q. 



c 3 O S- 

■r— LO O LO +J 

. — CU 1 — O- LO 

Q. C L0 E ■!- 

r3 o C fd O -f; 

O "-3 O C/l 



(T3 l_ S- •!- 

I 0J *-> 

"O LO 

J C I" LO 

CD CU O 



13 a o 



E 

aj (O o f 
■1- <♦- t- _c 

+J -r- +J +-> 

S- r- J- $- 

HI B 0) o 



146 





Ui 


<3- ro en 


<X> 


LT> LO i— 1 




c 


H[\|H 


in 


CNJ CD CM 


a 


MrHM 


to 


CM CM 


o 











i_n ■— < ix> 


CM 


«* >-< 


oo ld cd 


<* 


r-~ co 


LO M i— 1 


o 


ro 



c 


T3 


■c 


* 


(V 




X 


E 






1 

3 


s 



O ro o ro 



lt> ro i— i en 



O IDLf) i— i 



O 1— I i— I CNJ 



O LT) «^- ON 



o o >=*■ r-~ rl c\j 



o o co rv o 



i — ro c\j cm 



CX> KO CNJ 



ro CNJ LO 



ro cnj *-j- en 



CM -— I CM LT) 



rH iH CM ^f 



I"* 



O 

C/3 



O 

u 

H 
U 



02 






93 



oS 



o 
c 

3 



oo 

ON 



<^r en cnj uo 



co co o .— i 



^- ^f ID IV ID 



cnj ^a- ix> 



CNJ ON t— I CNJ 



OCJrH ro 



o en cj) co 



O ro cnj lt) 



< 
U 

Q 
P 

►"8 

Q 



c/3 

w 



N ro ID LT> 



■^tNOCOCO P-- 

oo <—* lo 



O > — I ' — 1 " — I CNJ LD 



*fr <X> CTi P^- vD cnj 

1-Hr-* LD 



O en cnj en >— < r— i 

r- 1 t-H i-H LO 



O nD ID CM ' 



fN. OO LO LO 



O O ro ro 



t-H cnj 



O ro r^ I-*. O r-- 






<X> IX) vf 


l£j 


ro ro <x> 


CM 


■h n idq-^ 


en 


ca 


HNCO 


r^ 


CM "3" vl" 


i — i 


ro i — ro ro f-H 


-:>.:■ 





Cnj .—I 


vt 


CNJ .— 1 


vT 


■ — i 


CNJ 


S- 















■X) CO CNJ IX) 
•=d" LD **■ <5f 

.— i .— t ro 



vt ro <* i— i 



CD ro i— i 

O IX) ON 
ro r-< 



CNJ >X) vT CNJ 



.—I CNJ 



.— I CNJ 



i— I CNJ 



LD CNJ CNJ 



—i CO CNJ .— < 



CD LO O LD 

vt ro ro O 

~H CM 



<J«)C>J CM 



E 




• t- 


o 


c 


s_ 


(-> 


o 


+J 


aj sz 


(A 


l/> 


en (/) 






-o <c 


•r- 


o 



co 



c 


■r- 


cu 


0) 


o 


c 


cu 


c 


>l 


s_ 


cu 


ro 



r— T- C <Z S- 

^ > O QJ QJ 4J 

c c c/i u S- m 

ta <o i- c i. -i- 



ro O CO Q T- 



3 O Q T- 





■r- 


~i 


c 


^ 


X3 


a; 


i/i 


r- 


■a 


c 


3 


H3 








■>_ 


n 


m 


ca 


(_j 



147 



ro o 
CO 00 
CO .—I 



exj co U"> 



in N c\j 

LT) CO «* 

t— I CXJ 



ON o 


en 


CM CNJ 


UD O 


<X> 


LO CO 


.— t CD 


i — i 


— < «* 



ro cnj CO cvi r-- cxi 
ro cr> exj co -d- CO 
i— « cxi ro •— < exj .— < 



ro ro co 



cxi o cxi 



ro lo co 



CXI O CXJ 



H LO CO 



ro cr» cm 



cxi ^r CO 



*j- r-^ — i 



cxi «=j- CO 



Z 

> H 



O .—I 



w w 


3C 

9 


w u 


—' 


r ■ _ 


p*; 


z* 


3 


» 22 


| 




1 


>r- 


— 


*z 


a 


— - — 


"—a 


5" 




w X 









— n ■— • CXJ 



•-H «3" LT) 



CXJ O CXJ 



.-I o -— t 



i— I r— I CXJ 



ro ro co 



H LT1 CO 



O ro ro 



O co co 



o uo i_n 



cxi o cxi 



o~* ^- ro 



i— t cxj ro 



O ro I*-* Kt ro 



O o ro .— i o 



O ro *t ro ro ro 



O O CO O CO CXJ 



as — < 



O CXJ 


C 1 


*3- ro 


LO CXJ 


f 


CO 


C\J ■— I 


CO 


1 — 1 



CJw — ^o 



r*- lo co 



CO ^3- 

cnj r-~ 

i— I CO 



ir> in 

.—I C\J 

.— < ro 



O CO CO 



.— 1 .—I CXJ rH 



i— I CO ON CO >X> 
LT> *J" lT> CXJ ^H 



Oinnogo co 

r — H LOtJl h cr> 
r-H . — I r-i rr 



-r 




cr. 






.'. 




r, 






^ 




-- 






-4-» 


aj 


■4-> 






u 


j 


- 


~ 






n 




"■. 


n .< 


;- 


rD 


- 


c 


-- 


•w 


— 


4-1 


-*-> 


r 


/ 


<T3 


'A 


<e 


-. 








.c 


(- 


O 


<c 


a 


• , 


O 



.o o ■<- 






<u XT 


<_> 


4-> 






XI 




E D. 


• /— 


O 






c 




O r— 


s_ 








< ' 


>, 


en o 


-»-> 


i_ 


c: 


<u 


— 


1 — 


-t-> TO 


IA 


■tJ 


o 


1- 


i. 


l_ 


c c 




on 


u~ 


o 


o 


ra 


O 13 


Q 


T" 


c 


o 


••- 


4-3 



2 1/1D 



I4X 







o 


H<tOW 


i — 


ON^N 




OX 


00 


co m co cd 


LO 


■*0 W i-l 




C 


10 


CM i— I i— 1 


x> 


i— i co c\j 


o 
H 


m 
4* 











. — I . — I IT) 



IT) rH ID 

IDOOI 
IDIDCO 



O .-i —i o 



OlDNH ^J- 



CM CM i— I CO CO 



O O CM LD 



cm r^ ko ^j- CD crt 



- 



co co lo o >X) 



CM CTi r~- l£> CD ^t 



x> c\j co 

.— I .— I CVI 



O CNJ CVI 



x 

o 
u 

H 

u 



1-8 

X 

o 

-L. 

H 










"T 


ex 
C 


H 


90 




e> 


« 





o 

r<j 

C 
3 



00 



3 



HlDHM CM 



< 

y 

5 

Q 



CO 

w 

CO 



.£ ^ 



WC0N ^ .—I 



OiniDOO CTi 
i—l CM 



CD l-H CM ^J- 



O «* <* «3- 



CTi X3 X) «X) CM CT> 



O i-H ^H 



cnj cn i—i 



.— I ,— I co 



OW U1 N 



NWfON CD 



CO CM <* CTi CO 

rHlOWM -—I 

.-h .—i ■— i q- 



WOOIN CO 



cn co o co »X) »X) 



VDOID 
IX) CO -=Hr 
■— I CNJ i-H 



CTi X) IX) 



CO X) *d- 



n co inn i — 



^H ■* 



INONCO I — 

CM MiDO CD 

.—I CNJ 



COM O) 
CM CD CD 
<— 1 CM r- I 



-O O p— •!- 



>, 


s_ 


(0 


-o 


CD CD 


l/l 


H-> 


X 




•r- TD 


!- 


l/) 


(1J 


>• 


> CD 


o 






m 


<T3 i- 


u_ 


Q 


<c 


o 


O .— • 



03 

XT u"> C 

cn 0) -i- 

0) CD -^ -^ 

.— x: .— td 

t — CO *r— ro 

< < 3 >- 



C i — 03 

O CD cn >, 

>-> 00 JZ 3 CD 

i- *f— U f0 o 

O) "d -m +j c: 

> 03 ■!- 03 03 

<c s: s 3 >- 



■r- i/) 



r — U 





til 


n 


0) 


5 


5 




a 


ra 


J*. 


i — 


+J 


3 


in 


03 


CD 


cj 


o 



<=>| 



03 f= 'i- 



0) C 'r- 
^ -r- O 



149 



CM CO CM — H \£> 



<JOOMfOHrt 



o o o o o 



OOOOO^-iO •— I 



cm co cm <— * tjD «^r 



"JOONCIOH 



MfONON'- ir-. co i— i 



O O CM O 



CD O CO 



- 

> H 
X U © 



£ 

3 

u 
B 



ko 10 <^> ^3- 00 o 



iDOrOHH .-1 



COrOOO IDrHS LO 



cm o co co 1— 1 10 10 



i—i r~ 



OOOrHCvJOrH 



x * 1 






I - 



c ;r. 



O l£> CO CO p"» Cn 



PES 



^ " 



Utf) 



Q 



r-- uo o O 1— < co 



= 
5 




■B 




E 


r — lt) r^. co c\j 

CM CO CM 



•— i cm o cm t— < .— < «a- 1— 1 



wonNNHto co 



.— 1 O O >* "3" O .— 1 o 



.— I O CO CO CO *— IN CO 



CM CO OO 



HHHNO^O 



^h n 



cr 



/ ' — 

S- Ol 

(U 2 <u 1/) 

T! o^r c 

C O 1— ■<-> ra 

<U (-) O 3 I- 

3: 2: a. ol \— 



■ 1 — -r- u 



TO C 



_ o 

O TJ O </> C C 

s- >,x: 3 jx: o 1- 

QJ B nj >,u u fl 

-C ( — L IT) fO 'D 2 

uooioEV) 



•r- ra 






150 



FILING AND DISPOSITION TRENDS OF CRIMINAL CASES IN THE 

DISTRICT COURTS 

1974 - 1983-1984 



1.5 



M 

I 
I 
1 
I 



N 
S 



O 
I 



C 

A 
S 
E 

S 



1.0 



0.5 



0.0 




82-83 83-84 



Motor vehicle cases dominate criminal filings and dispo- 
sitions in the district courts. The increase in filings and 
dispositions shown here during 1983-84 is the result of a 
5.5% increase in motor vehicle filings and a 5.8% increase 



in motor vehicle dispositions. During the 1983-84 fiscal 
year, 66.7%, of the criminal district court filings and 66.69t 
of dispositions were traffic cases. 



151 



MOTOR VEHICLE CRIMINAL CASE FILINGS AND 
DISPOSITIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1983 — June 30, 1984 



District 1 

Camden 

Chowan 

Currituck 

Dare 

Gates 

Pasquotank 

Perquimans 

District Totals 

District 2 

Beaufort 
Hyde 
Martin 
Tyrrel 1 
Washington 

District Totals 

District 3 

Carteret 

Craven 
Paml ico 

Pitt 

District Totals 



Totd 

Filed 

1,041 
1,243 
1,881 
5,289 
1,078 
2,006 
1,016 

13,554 



6,880 
840 

3,445 
486 
988 

12,639 



6,808 

10,230 

742 

11,157 

28,937 



Waiver 

662 

829 
1,232 
3,794 

692 
1,263 

716 

9,188 



3,243 
470 

2,014 
283 
616 

6,626 



3,965 

5,814 

412 

5,871 

16,062 



Dispositions 




Other 


Total Dispositions 


276 


938 


360 


1,189 


672 


1,904 


1,484 


5,278 


398 


1,090 


825 


2,088 


310 


1,026 


4,325 


13,513 


2,141 


5,384 


402 


892 


1,315 


3,329 


206 


489 


329 


945 



4,393 



2,674 

4,198 

328 

4,510 

11,710 



11,019 



6,639 

10,012 

740 

10,381 

27,772 



District 4 

Dupl in 
Jones 
Onslow 
Sampson 

District Totals 



3,869 

1,208 

11,131 

6,896 

23,104 



2,168 

677 

5,386 

4,205 

12,436 



1,488 

430 

5,659 

2,646 

10,223 



3,656 

1,107 

11,045 

6,851 

22,659 



District 5 

New Hanover 
Pender 

District Totals 

District 6 

Bertie 
Halifax 
Hertford 
Northampton 

District Total s 

District 7 

Edgecombe 
Nash 
Wil sun 

District Totals 



14,167 
3,407 

17,574 



2,986 
9,674 
3,610 
4,001 

20,271 



4,396 
9,246 
6,167 

19,809 



7,247 
1,842 

9,089 



2,128 
6,805 
2,394 
2,337 

13,664 



3,012 
6,393 
4,309 

13,714 



6,801 
1,643 

8,444 



958 
3,619 
1,148 
1,739 

7,464 



1,391 
2,770 
2,055 

6,216 



14,048 
3,485 

17,533 



3,086 

10,424 

3,542 

4,076 

21,128 



4,403 
9,163 
6,364 

19,930 



District 8 

Greene 
Lenoir 

District Totals 

District 9 

Frankl in 

Granville 

Person 

Vance 

Warren 

District Totals 



1,579 

7,960 

10,011 

19,550 



2,352 
4,162 
3,047 
4,639 
2,403 

16,603 



995 
4,200 
5,285 

10,480 



1,188 
2,629 
1,606 
2,794 
1,583 

9,800 

152 



645 
3,674 
4,733 

9,052 



1,124 
1,522 
1,377 
1,933 

850 

6,806 



1,640 

7,874 

10,018 

19,532 



2,312 
4,151 
2,983 
4,727 
2,433 

16,606 



District 10 
Wake 



MOTOR VEHICLE CRIMINAL CASE FILINGS AND 
DISPOSITIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1983 - June 30, 1984 



Total 
Filed 

61,861 



Waiver 



28,517 



Dispositions 



Other 

30,188 



Total Dispositions 

58,705 



District 11 

Harnett 

Johnston 

Lee 

District Totals 

District 12 

Cumberland 
Hoke 

District Totals 

District 13 

Bladen 

Brunswick 

Columbus 

District Totals 
District 14 



Durham 

District 15A 
Alamance 

District 15B 

Chatham 
Orange 

District Totals 

District 16 

Robeson 
Scotland 

District Totals 

District 17A 

Caswel 1 
Rockingham 

District Totals 

District 17B 

Stokes 
Surry 

District Totals 

District 18 
Guilford 

Greensboro 
High Point 

District Totals 

District 19A 

Cabarrus 
Rowan 

District Totals 

District 19B 

Montgomery 
Randolph 

District Totals 



6,206 
9,189 
5,965 

21,360 



30,870 
2,758 

33,628 



4,791 
4,119 
5,879 

14,789 



25,816 



10,111 



4,181 
9,999 

14,180 



9,884 
4,009 

13,893 



2,205 
8,599 

10,804 



3,036 
7,278 

10,314 



43,167 
12,303 

55,470 



15,631 
11,161 

26,792 



3,995 
9,456 

13,451 



3,191 
4,655 
3,778 

11,624 



16,341 
1,864 

18,205 



2,626 
2,094 
2,928 

7,648 



15,523 



5,841 



2,204 
4,651 

6,855 



4,537 
2,454 

6,991 



1,465 
5,607 

7,072 



1,835 
4,639 

6,474 



22,314 
6,040 

28,354 



10,129 
7,106 

17,235 



2,537 

6,114 

8,651 
153 



2,632 
4,420 
2,073 

9,125 



14,818 
848 

15,666 



2,191 
2,122 
2,965 

7,278 



9,419 



4,376 



1,659 
4,380 

6,039 



5,860 
1,543 

7,403 



827 
3,246 

4,073 



1,197 

2,544 

3,741 



20,661 

6,418 

27,079 



5,161 

3,600 

8,761 



1,396 
3,131 

4,527 



5,823 
9,075 
5,851 

20,749 



31,159 
2,712 

33,871 



4,817 
4,216 
5,893 

14,926 



24,942 



10,217 



3,863 
9,031 

12,894 



10,397 
3,997 

14,394 



2,292 
8,853 

11,145 



3,032 
7,183 

10,215 



42,975 

12,458 

55,433 



15,290 
10,706 

25,996 



3,933 

9,245 

13,178 



MOTOR VEHICLE CRIMINAL CASE FILINGS AND 
DISPOSITIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 



District 


20 


Anson 




Moore 




Richmond 




Stanly 




L'nion 




District 


Totals 



Total 
Filed 

3,086 
6,798 
3,351 
4,624 
5,924 

23,783 



Dispositions 



Waiver 

1,934 
3,880 
1,991 
2,719 
3,579 

14,103 



Other 

1,121 
3,040 
1,319 
1,921 
2,469 

9,870 



Total Dispositions 

3,055 
6,920 
3,310 

4,640 
6,048 

23,973 



District 21 
Forsyth 

District 22 

Alexander 
Davidson 
Davie 
Iredel 1 

District Totals 

District 23 

Alleghany 
Ashe 
Wi 1 kes 
Yadkin 

District Totals 

District 24 

Avery 

Madison 

Mitchell 

Watauga 

Yancey 

District Totals 

District 25 

Burke 

Caldwell 
Catawba 

District Totals 

District 26 
Mecklenburg 

District 27A 
Gaston 

District 27B 

Cleveland 
Lincoln 

District Totals 

District 28 
Buncombe 

District 29 

Henderson 
Mc Dowel 1 
Polk 

Rutherford 
Transylvania 

District Totals 



40,694 



1,594 

12,499 

3,040 

8,816 

25,949 



750 

2,066 
5,357 
4,095 

12,268 



1,941 
1,577 
976 
4,161 
1,573 

10,228 



9,659 

7,006 

12,803 

29,468 



61,960 
16,258 



7,061 
3,863 

10,924 



17,188 



6,924 
4,456 
1,793 
5,202 
1,953 

20,328 



22,270 



727 
7,583 
2,227 
5,295 

15,832 



442 
1,340 
3,544 
2,447 

7,773 



1,034 

962 

598 

2,582 

1,049 

6,225 



6,547 
3,991 
6,956 

17,494 



33,545 



8,509 



4,422 
2,122 

6,544 



11,992 



5,106 
3,167 
1,192 
3,573 
1,185 

14,223 



18,489 



834 
4,638 
1,122 
2,809 

9,403 



258 

746 

2,342 

1,639 

4,985 



1,019 
517 
421 

1,503 
534 

3,994 



3,142 
2,933 
5,197 

11,272 



26,317 



7,624 



2,531 
1,776 

4,307 



6,150 



1,851 

1,432 

536 

1,623 

709 

6,151 



40,759 



1,561 

12,221 

3,349 

8,104 

25,235 



700 
2,086 
5,886 
4,086 

12,758 



2,053 
1,479 
1,019 
4,085 
1,583 

10,219 



9,689 

6,924 

12,153 

28,766 
59,862 
16,133 



6,953 
3,898 

10,851 



18,142 



6,957 
4,599 
1,728 
5,196 
1,894 

20,374 



154 



MOTOR VEHICLE CRIMINAL CASE FILINGS AND 
DISPOSITIONS IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1983 — June 30, 1984 







Total 






Filed 


Di s tri ct 


30 




Cherokee 




2,042 


Clay 




564 


Graham 




471 


Haywood 




5,658 


Jackson 




2,454 


Macon 




2,821 


Swain 




835 


District 


Totals 


14,845 


State Totals 


768,403 



Waiver 

1,221 
389 

344 
3,242 
1,531 
1,845 

534 

9,106 
437,665 



Dispositions 




Other 


Total Dispositions 


688 


1,909 


139 


528 


148 


492 


2,042 


5,284 


936 


2,467 


790 


2,635 


339 


873 


5,082 


14,188 


19,952 


757,617 



155 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1983 — June 30, 1984 



District 1 


Pending 

7/1/83 


Filed 


Total 
Caseload 


Disposed 


% Caseload 
Disposed 


Pending 
6/30/84 


Camden 

Chowan 

Currituck 

Dare 

Gates 

Pasquotank 

Perquimans 


8 

39 

54 
380 

22 
117 

56 


140 
611 
608 

1,387 
216 

1,719 
437 


148 
650 
662 

1,767 
238 

1,836 
493 


133 
608 
596 

1,138 
227 

1,726 
450 


89.8 
93.5 
90.0 
64.4 
95.3 
94.0 
91.2 


15 
42 
66 

629 
11 

110 
43 


District Totals 


676 


5,118 


5,794 


4,878 


84.1 


916 


District 2 














Beaufort 

Hyde 

Martin 

Tyrrell 

Washington 


115 
69 
76 
13 
10 


2,317 
482 

1,264 
259 

742 


2,432 
551 

1,340 
272 
752 


2,277 
519 

1,244 
268 
734 


93.6 

94.1 
92.8 
98.5 
97.6 


155 

32 

96 

4 

18 


District Totals 


283 


5,064 


5,347 


5,042 


94.2 


305 


District 3 














Carteret 
Craven 
Pamlico 
Pitt 


700 

587 

66 

785 


4,687 

4,875 

459 

8,561 


5,387 

5,462 

525 

9,346 


4,355 

4,836 

483 

8,067 


80.8 
88.5 
92.0 
86.3 


1,032 

626 

42 

1,279 


District Totals 


2,138 


18,582 


20,720 


17,741 


85.6 


2,979 


District 4 














Dupl in 
Jones 
Onslow 
Sampson 


158 

48 

753 

341 


2,124 

508 

9,009 

2,759 


2,282 

556 

9,762 

3,100 


2,159 

497 

8,721 

2,752 


94.6 
89.3 
89.3 
88.7 


123 

59 

1,041 

348 


District Totals 


1,300 


14,400 


15,700 


14,129 


89.9 


1,571 


District 5 














New Hanover 

Pender 


1,034 
120 


9,731 
1,019 


10,765 
1,139 


9,536 

1,046 


88.5 

91.8 


1,229 
93 


District Totals 


1,154 


10,750 


11,904 


10,582 


88.8 


1,322 


District 6 














Bertie 
Hal ifax 
Hertford 
Northampton 


54 
480 
178 

65 


877 
3,733 
1,411 

976 


931 
4,213 
1,589 
1,041 


873 
3,775 
1,469 

960 


93.7 
89.6 
92.4 
92.2 


58 

438 

120 

81 


District Totals 


777 


6,997 


7,774 


7,077 


91.0 


697 


District 7 














Edgecombe 

Nash 

Wilson 


680 

657 

1,068 


4,967 
5,744 
4,760 


5,647 
6,401 
5,828 


4,906 
5,550 
4,832 


86.8 
86.7 
82.9 


741 
851 
996 


District Totals 


2,405 


15,471 


17,876 


15,288 


85.5 


2,588 


District 8 














Greene 
Lenoir 
Wayne 


41 

451 
1,223 


832 
4,527 
6,456 


873 
4,978 
7,679 


819 
4,461 
6,600 


93.8 

89.6 
85.9 


54 

517 

1,079 


District Totals 


1,715 


11,815 


13,530 


11,880 


87.8 


1,650 



156 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1983 — June 30, 1984 



District 9 



Pending 

7/1/83 



Filed 



Total 
Caseload 



Disposed 



% Caseload 
Disposed 



Pending 

6/30/84 



Franklin 

Granville 

Person 

Vance 

Warren 


150 
203 
175 
269 

86 


1,828 
1,977 
1,485 
2,730 
821 


1,978 
2,180 
1,660 
2,999 
907 


1,762 
2,013 
1,475 
2,769 
853 


89.0 
92.3 
88.8 
92.3 
94.0 


216 
167 
185 
230 
54 


District Totals 


883 


8,841 


9,724 


8,872 


91.2 


852 


District 10 














Wake 


4,804 


25,734 


30,538 


25,380 


83.1 


5,158 


District 11 














Harnett 

Johnston 

Lee 


337 
412 
252 


3,278 
4,895 
3,667 


3,615 
5,307 
3,919 


3,286 
4,887 
3,573 


90.8 
92.0 
91.1 


329 
420 
346 


District Totals 


1,001 


11,840 


12,841 


11,746 


91.4 


1,095 


District 12 














Cumberland 
Hoke 


3,531 
158 


18,496 
1,343 


22,027 
1,501 


18,997 
1,347 


86.2 
89.7 


3,030 
154 


District Totals 


3,689 


19,839 


23,528 


20,344 


86.4 


3,184 


District 13 














Bladen 

Brunswick 

Columbus 


224 
350 
352 


1,872 
2,350 
3,605 


2,096 
2,700 
3,957 


1,856 
2,321 
3,601 


88.5 
85.9 
91.0 


240 
379 
356 


District Totals 


926 


7,827 


8,753 


7,778 


88.8 


975 


District 14 














Durham 


2,194 


12,309 


14,503 


12,178 


83.9 


2,325 


District 15A 














Alamance 


544 


5,428 


5,972 


5,305 


88.8 


667 


District 15B 














Chatham 
Orange 


219 

595 


1,777 
3,475 


1,996 
4,070 


1,804 
3,583 


90.3 
88.0 


192 
487 


District Totals 


814 


5,252 


6,066 


5,387 


88.8 


679 


District 16 














Robeson 
Scotland 


1,089 
233 


8,020 
2,924 


9,109 
3,157 


8,488 
2,852 


92.1 
90.3 


621 
305 


District Totals 


1,322 


10,944 


12,266 


11,340 


92.4 


926 


District 17A 














Caswell 
Rockingham 


60 
373 


779 
4,955 


839 
5,328 


791 
4,941 


94.2 
92.7 


48 
387 


District Totals 


433 


5,734 


6,167 


5,732 


92.9 


435 


District 17B 














Stokes 
Surry 


99 
288 


997 
2,657 


1,096 
2,945 


1,016 
2,712 


92.7 
92.0 


80 
233 


District Totals 


387 


3,654 


4,041 


3,728 


92.2 


313 


District 18 















Guilford 



5,849 



26,211 



32,060 



25,827 



80.5 



6,233 



157 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1,1983 — June 30, 1984 



District 19A 


Pending 

7/1/83 


Filed 


Total 
Caseload 


Disposed 


% Caseload 
Disposed 


Pending 

6/30/84 


Cabarrus 
Rowan 


721 
363 


4,480 
3,698 


5,201 
4,061 


4,164 
3,736 


80.0 
91.9 


1,037 
325 


District Totals 


1,084 


8,178 


9,262 


7,900 


85.2 


1,362 


District 19B 














Montgomery 
Randolph 


211 
625 


1,950 
4,249 


2,161 
4,874 


1,881 
4,436 


87.0 
91.0 


280 
438 


District Totals 


836 


6,199 


7,035 


6,317 


89.7 


718 


District 20 














Anson 

Moore 

Richmond 

Stanly 

Union 


320 
377 
216 
208 
378 


1,643 

3,615 
3,021 
2,104 
3,530 


1,963 
3,992 
3,237 
2,312 
3,908 


1,733 
3,635 
3,061 
2,095 
3,513 


88.2 
91.0 
94.5 
90.6 
89.8 


230 
357 
176 
217 
395 


District Totals 


1,499 


13,913 


15,412 


14,037 


91.0 


1,375 


District 21 














Forsyth 


2,676 


16,259 


18,935 


16,919 


89.3 


2,016 


District 22 














Alexander 
Davidson 
Davie 
Iredell 


102 

804 

99 

731 


1,042 

6,304 

851 

5,212 


1,144 

7,108 

950 

5,943 


1,029 

6,144 

846 

5,041 


89.9 
86.4 
89.0 
84.8 


115 

964 
104 
902 


District Totals 


1,736 


13,409 


15,145 


13,060 


86.2 


2,085 


District 23 














Alleghany 
Ashe 
Wilkes 
Yadkin 


26 

58 

319 

101 


417 

711 

2,791 

1,077 


443 

769 

3,110 

1,178 


429 

710 

2,787 

985 


96.8 
92.3 
89.6 
83.6 


14 

59 

323 

193 


District Totals 


504 


4,996 


5,500 


4,911 


89.2 


589 


District 24 














Avery 

Madison 

Mitchell 

Watauga 

Yancey 


70 
63 

53 

158 

63 


283 

483 

352 

1,393 

419 


353 
546 
405 
1,551 
482 


224 
411 
349 
1,327 
419 


63.4 
75.2 
86.1 
85.5 
86.9 


129 
135 

56 
224 

63 


District Totals 


407 


2,930 


3,337 


2,730 


81.8 


607 


District 25 














Burke 

Caldwell 

Catawba 


435 
363 
601 


3,604 
3,188 
5,602 


4,039 
3,551 
6,203 


3,540 
3,124 
5,380 


87.6 
87.9 
86.7 


499 
427 
823 


District Totals 


1,399 


12,394 


13,793 


12,044 


87.3 


1,749 


District 26 














Mecklenburg 


6,830 


30,069 


36,899 


30,281 


82.0 


6,618 


District 27A 














Gaston 


2,165 


11,797 


13,962 


11,693 


83.7 


2,269 



158 



CASELOAD INVENTORY FOR CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1983 - June 30, 1984 



District 27B 



Cherokee 

Clay 

Graham 

Haywood 

Jackson 

Macon 

Swa i n 

District Totals 
State Totals 



Pending 

7/1/83 



162 

39 

33 

317 

101 

283 

54 

989 
56,590 



Filed 



Total 
Caseload 



Disposed 



706 
124 
425 
1,973 
748 
590 
450 

5,016 
382,780 



868 
163 
458 
2,290 
849 
873 
504 

6,005 
439,370 



717 
151 
397 
2,033 
751 
702 
455 

5,206 

380,643 



% Caseload 
Disposed 



82.6 
92.6 
86.6 
88.7 
88.4 
80.4 
90.2 

86.6 
86.6 



Pending 

6/30/84 



Cleveland 
Lincoln 


374 

200 


4,301 
2,123 


4,675 
2,323 


4,305 
2,104 


92.0 
90.5 


370 
219 


District Totals 


574 


6,424 


6,998 


6,409 


91.5 


589 


District 28 














Buncombe 


1,082 


10,382 


11,464 


10,090 


88.0 


1,374 


District 29 














Henderson 

McDowell 

Polk 

Rutherford 

Transylvania 


642 

161 

91 

457 

164 


3,101 
1,249 
565 
2,804 
1,285 


3,743 
1,410 
656 
3,261 
1,449 


3,171 
1,286 
530 
2,595 
1,230 


84.7 
91.2 
80.7 
79.5 
84.8 


572 
124 
126 
666 
219 


District Totals 


1,515 


9,004 


10,519 


8,812 


83.7 


1,707 


District 30 















151 
12 
61 

257 
98 

171 
49 

799 
58,727 



159 



METHODS OF DISPOSITION OF DISTRICT COURT 
NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES 

1983-1984 



WAIVERS 



OTHER 



DISMISSALS 




GUILTY PLEA 



NOT GUILTY PLEA 



Guilty pleas continue to account for the largest number 
of dispositions of motor vehicle cases in the district 



courts. The waivers depicted here are worthless check 
cases. 



160 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1983 — June 30, 1984 



District 1 

Camden 

Chowan 

Curri tuck 

Dare 

Gates 

Pasquotank 

Perquimans 

District Totals 





W: 


aiver 




Guilty 


Plea 


Not Guilty Plea 








Speedy 




































Total 


Magis- 








Magis- 




Magis- 


Prelim. 


Dismissal 


Trial 




% Disposed 


Disposed 


trate 


CI 


erk 


Judge 


trate 


Judge 


trate 


Hearing 


by 


D.A. 


Dismissal 


Other 


By 


Waiver 


133 


1 







26 


37 


18 





4 




8 





39 




.7 


608 


41 




6 


221 


76 


110 





36 




62 





56 




7.7 


596 


8 




8 


140 


144 


84 





40 




112 





60 




2.6 


1,138 


2 




1 


494 


109 


145 


1 


26 




222 





138 




.2 


227 


5 




4 


63 


57 


30 





13 




24 





31 




3.9 


1,726 


62 




47 


645 


61 


366 





117 




349 





79 




6.3 


450 


5 




n 


89 


75 


87 


2 


15 




109 





68 




1.1 



4,i 



124 



66 



1,678 



559 



251 



471 



3.! 



Distri ct 2 

Beaufort 
Hyde 
Martin 
Tyrrel 1 
Washington 

District Totals 



2,277 


313 


48 


803 


209 


519 


1 


13 


117 


101 


1,244 


186 


56 


452 


41 


268 


5 


5 


98 


22 


734 


126 


16 


242 


50 



5,042 



631 



138 



1,712 



423 



426 


10 


129 


139 


75 


1 


31 


71 


178 





141 


60 


45 





17 


10 


151 





78 


44 



875 



11 



396 



324 






200 


15.8 





109 


2.6 





130 


19.4 





66 


3.7 





2 7 


19.3 



532 



15.2 



District 3 

Carteret 
Craven 
Paml ico 
Pitt 

District Totals 



4,355 


453 


99 


1,428 


625 


4,836 


772 


247 


1,417 


232 


483 


8 


34 


113 


122 


8,067 


1,511 


996 


2,491 


146 



17,741 2,744 1,376 5,449 1,125 



160 

382 

50 

719 

1,311 






246 


1,202 





149 


1,331 





16 


127 





598 


1,413 



1,009 



4,073 






142 


12.6 





306 


21.0 





13 


8.6 





193 


31.0 



654 



23.2 



District 4 

Dupl in 
Jones 
Onslow 
Sampson 

District Totals 



2,159 


208 


189 


768 


3 


497 


10 


24 


117 


80 


8,721 


941 


806 


3,987 


198 


2,752 


570 


287 


954 


12 



14,129 1,729 1,306 



5,826 



293 



54 
71 

457 
123 

705 






243 


303 





15 


87 





7 


1,163 


2 


n 


322 



26 5 



1,875 






391 


18.3 





93 


. 6.8 





1,162 


20.0 





482 


31.1 



2,128 21.4 



District 5 

New Hanover 
Pender 

District Totals 



9,536 


767 


272 


3,278 


117 


1,279 


1,046 


26 


10 


388 


119 


146 



10,582 



793 



282 



3,666 



236 



1,425 



1,256 

74 

1,330 



1,406 
194 

1,600 



1,160 
89 

1,240 



10.8 
3.4 

10.1 



District 6 

Bertie 
Hal ifax 
Hertford 
Northampton 

District Totals 



873 


8 


34 


269 


61 


3,775 


212 


82 


1,265 


369 


1,469 


140 


69 


485 


63 


960 


53 


66 


232 


140 



7,077 



413 



251 



2,251 



633 



204 
647 
187 
136 

1,174 






62 


113 





133 


648 


2 


109 


142 


2 


62 


123 



366 



1,026 






122 


4.8 





419 


7.7 





272 


14.2 





146 


12.3 



<)V< 



9.3 



District 7 

Edgecombe 

Nash 

Wilson 

District Totals 



4,906 


622 


294 


1,623 


219 


5,550 


1,131 


315 


1,930 


265 


4,832 


638 


305 


1,919 


88 



15,288 2,391 



914 



5,472 



572 



687 

598 
403 



l,f 



1 


183 


1,030 





120 


914 





284 


1,091 



587 



3,035 






247 


18.6 





277 


26.0 





104 


19.5 



628 



21. 



District 8 

Greene 
Lenoi r 
Wayne 

District Totals 



819 

4,461 
6,600 

11,880 



140 
146 
343 

629 



3 


733 

736 



229 
1,341 
2,392 

3,962 



44 
643 
128 

815 



81 
466 

177 

724 






42 


143 





169 


1,146 





46 


2,037 



257 



3,331 






132 


17.4 





550 


3.2 





744 


16.3 



1,426 



11.4 



161 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1983 - June 30, 1984 



District 9 

Frankl in 
Granvil le 
Person 

Warren 
District Totals 

District 10 



District Totals 

District 14 
Durham 

District 15A 
Alamance 

District 15B 





w 


liver 


Guilt> 


Plea 


Not Guilty Plea 


Prelim. 




Total 


Magis- 






Magis- 




Magis- 


Dismissa 


Disposed 


trate 


Clerk 


Judge 


trate 


Judge 


trate 


Hearing 


by D.A. 


1,762 


357 


r,;' 


507 


32 


251 





110 


344 


2,013 


165 


148 


748 


84 


253 


1 


182 


295 


1,475 


119 


5 


449 


86 


302 





70 


269 


2,769 


298 


153 


917 


34 


366 


1 


97 


421 


853 


41 


24 


234 


75 


205 





42 


178 



Speedy 
Trial % Disposed 

Dismissal Other By Waiver 



J, 872 



980 



592 



2,855 



m 



1,377 



501 



1,507 



7,778 



12,178 



5,305 



396 



368 



400 



m 



,-i, 



2,327 



5,f 



2,238 



594 



14 



167 



825 



623 



853 



369 



258 



470 



2,044 



3,395 



879 






99 


23.7 





137 


15.5 





175 


8.4 





482 


16.2 





54 


7.6 



947 



377 



1,150 



272 



15.4 



Wake 


25,380 


236 


5,276 


8,302 


36 


1,701 





1,714 


6,626 





1,489 


21.7 


District 11 


























Harnett 

Johnston 

Lee 


3,286 
4,887 
3,573 


412 
601 
772 


363 
407 

hi 


933 
1,734 
1,147 


106 

78 

8 


330 

505 

465 








189 
291 
256 


571 
837 
552 


n 




382 
434 
312 


23.5 
20.6 
23.3 


District Totals 


11,746 


1,785 


831 


3,814 


192 


1,300 





736 


1,960 





1,128 


22.2 


District 12 


























Cumberland 
Hoke 


18,997 
1,347 


238 

47 


4,573 
250 


5,450 
441 


209 
39 


1,628 

239 






46 
1 


5,134 
230 






1,719 
100 


25.3 
22.0 


District Totals 


20,344 


:«5 


4,823 


5,891 


248 


1,867 





47 


5,364 





1,819 


25.1 


District 13 


























Bladen 

Brunswick 

Columbus 


1,856 
2,321 
3,601 


70 
119 

207 


L65 

27 

654 


637 

607 

1,083 


136 

394 
64 


197 
270 
358 







90 
102 
177 


430 
729 
885 




fl 




131 
73 

173 


12.6 

6.2 

23.9 



15.9 



8.9 



1.0 



Chatham 
Orange 


1,804 
3,583 


83 
373 


77 
30 


438 
1,092 


578 
143 


87 
256 


9 

1 


122 
137 


308 
1,059 







102 
492 


8.8 
11.2 


District Totals 


5,387 


456 


107 


1,530 


721 


343 


10 


259 


1,367 





594 


10.4 


District 16 


























Robeson 
Scotland 


8,488 
2,852 


1,169 
306 


135 
28 


4,091 
1,310 


18 
'18 


1,067 
390 






858 
154 


591 
210 






559 
362 


15.3 
11.7 


District Totals 


11,340 


1,475 


163 


5,401 


110 


1,457 





1,012 


801 





921 


14.4 


District 17A 


























Caswell 

• -"igham 


791 
4,941 


26 
245 



22 


195 
1,579 


57 

205 


246 
1,178 


1 




94 
157 


74 
707 






98 
848 


3.2 
5.4 


District Totals 


5,732 


271 


■/? 


1,774 


262 


1,424 


1 


251 


781 





946 


5.1 


District 17B 




























1,016 
2,712 


66 
213 


45 

1 


218 
630 


46 
156 


144 
369 


1 




48 
101 


247 
589 






201 
653 


10.9 
7.8 


ct Totals 


3,728 


279 


46 


848 


202 


513 


1 


148 


836 





854 


8.7 


District 18 


























Guilford 


25,327 


295 


955 


9,079 


1,701 


2,405 





896 


8,049 





2,447 


4.8 



162 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1983 — June 30, 1984 



District 


19A 


Cabarrus 
Rowan 




District 


Totals 


District 


19B 


Montgomery 
Randolph 


District 


Totals 


District 


20 


Anson 

Moore 

Richmond 

Stanly 

Union 




District 


Totals 


District 


21 



Forsyth 

District 22 

Alexander 
Davidson 
Davie 
Iredel 1 

District Totals 
District 23 



Alleghany 
Ashe 
Wilkes 
Yadkin 






District 


Total 


s 


District 


24 




Avery 
Madison 
Mitchell 
Watauga 






Yancey 






District 


Total 


s 


District 


25 





Burke 
Ca 1 dwe 1 1 
Catawba 

District Totals 

District 26 
Mecklenburg 

District 27A 
Gaston 

District 27B 

Cleveland 
Lincoln 

District Totals 





War 


ver 


Guilty 


Plea 


Not Guilty Plea 


Prelim. 


Dismissal 


Speedy 
Trial 


Total 


Magis- 






Magis- 




Magis- 


Disposed 


trate 


Clerk 


Judge 


trate 


Judge 


trate 


Hearing 


by D.A. 


Dismissal 


4,164 


313 


113 


1,283 


347 


812 


2 


286 


671 





3,736 


106 


113 


1,062 


244 


881 


2 


506 


555 






7,900 



1,881 
4,436 

6,317 



4,911 



2,730 



12,044 



30,281 



11,693 



4,305 
2,104 

6,409 



419 



142 
724 

866 



226 



14,037 1,669 



16,919 



396 



1,664 



351 



295 



864 



786 



354 



518 
216 

734 



202 



94 



358 



192 

2 
89 

91 



2,345 



327 
1,514 



4,968 



1,463 



397 



3,552 



3,830 



1,359 
559 

1,918 



591 



458 

93 



1,841 551 



1,733 


168 


4 


419 


153 


3,635 


395 


331 


833 


112 


3,061 


201 


56 


759 


133 


2,095 


306 


5 


463 


146 


3,513 


599 





934 


49 



3,408 593 



52 



1,029 


22 


65 


254 


37 


6,144 


203 


106 


1,876 


320 


846 


52 


23 


235 


3 


5,041 


364 


15 


1,656 


406 


13,060 


641 


209 


4,021 


766 


429 


28 


5 


122 


17 


710 


27 


53 


215 


74 


2,787 


262 


142 


818 


141 


985 


34 


2 


308 


50 



282 



224 


41 





40 


8 


411 


1 





60 


33 


349 


15 


1 


89 


16 


,327 


232 


85 


153 


60 


419 


6 


8 


55 


75 



102 



3,540 


213 


175 


863 


121 


3,124 


181 





929 


272 


5,380 


470 


183 


1,760 


204 



597 



9,617 2,277 



2 59 



11 
L87 



1,693 



377 

665 

1,042 



293 
409 
472 
328 
672 

2,174 



2,869 



89 

790 
158 
649 

1,686 



83 

140 
657 
251 

1,131 



970 



2,027 



1,183 



453 
213 

666 



22 


3 


44 





41 





86 


13 


74 


7 


267 


23 


225 





253 





492 






792 



99 
326 

425 



1,409 



412 



434 



138 



400 
480 
343 



340 
32 

372 



1,226 



420 
943 

1,363 






175 


485 





287 


617 





220 


599 





285 


409 





442 


651 



2,761 



1,719 4,609 






37 


286 





127 


1,834 





42 


225 





206 


1,435 



3,7? 






68 


71 





51 


120 





212 


337 





103 


156 



684 



41 


53 


5 


161 


21 


111 


38 


289 


33 


137 



751 



1,263 

707 
1,407 



1,223 3,377 



2,460 11,613 



134 



1,147 
557 

1,704 



Other 

337 

267 

604 



55 
171 

226 



36 
651 
621 
153 

166 



1,627 



364 



If, 
107 

55 
371 

24 

573 



% Disposed 
By Waiver 

10.2 
5.8 



7.7 
16.3 



13.7 



9.9 
19.9 

8.3 
14.8 
17.0 

14.7 






1,035 


9.8 





239 


8.4 





888 


5.0 





108 


8.8 





310 


7.5 





1,545 


6.5 





35 


7.6 





30 


11.2 





218 


14.4 





81 


3.6 



11.2 



18.3 
.2 

4.5 
23.8 

3.3 

14.2 






280 


10.9 





302 


5.7 





521 


12.1 





1,103 


10.1 





1,497 


2.6 





1,853 


4.6 





475 


12.0 





245 


14.4 



720 



12.8 






163 



MANNER OF DISPOSITION OF CRIMINAL NON-MOTOR VEHICLE CASES 

IN THE DISTRICT COURTS 

July 1, 1983 - June 30, 1984 







\v 


liver 


Guiltj 


Plea 


Not Guiltv Plea 














Total 














Prelim. 


Dismissal 


Speedy 
Trial 








Magis- 






Magis- 




Magis- 


% Dispo 




Disposed 


trate 


Clerk 


Judge 


trate 


Judge 


trate 


Hearing 


by D.A. 


Dismissal 


Other 


By W ah 


District .28 


























Buncombe 


10,090 


1,102 


639 


4,765 


48 


320 





736 


2,191 





289 


17.2 


District 29 


























Henderson 


3,171 


11 


7 


1,107 


434 


116 





407 


962 





127 


.5 


M .; C : . . e 1 1 


1,286 


95 


27 


485 


140 


94 


n 


159 


250 





36 


9.4 


Polk 


530 


3 


5 


181 


12 


15 





19 


203 





92 


1.5 


Rutherford 


2,595 


240 


2 


862 


201 


286 





163 


506 





335 


9.3 


Transylvania 


1,230 


31 


29 


441 


172 


54 


1 


31 


343 





128 


4.8 


District Totals 


8,812 


380 


70 


3,076 


959 


565 


1 


779 


2,264 





718 


5.1 


District 30 


























Cherokee 


717 


4 


3.' 


186 


10 


12 





54 


218 





201 


5.0 


Clay 


151 


2 


13 


57 


3 


10 





19 


45 





2 


9.9 


Graham 


397 





10 


99 


81 


19 


1 


6 


146 





35 


2.5 


Haywood 


2,033 


44 


11 


604 


100 


198 





294 


739 





43 


2.7 


Jackson 


751 


24 


17 


147 


170 


19 





4 


156 





214 


5.4 


Macon 


702 


21 


5 


151 


68 


20 





112 


272 





53 


3.7 


Swain 


455 


23 





102 


74 


18 





36 


174 





28 


5.0 


District Totals 


5,206 


118 


88 


1,346 


506 


296 


1 


525 


1,750 





576 


3.9 


State Totals 


380,643 


25,262 


23,514 


126,270 ] 


7,085 


40,319 


71 


22,681 


91,720 





33,721 


12.8 



164 



oonooso co 



^■MlfirHO CM 



co >3- *d- cm oo 



— 1 CM 



ve 
•»* ro 
c J. 

O oc 



CM i— I 



uo rv t-H o 



O •-! 



H 

X 

o 
u 

U 00 

N-* (?) 
H - 

Q > 

w s 

ox 

^ 8 

w - 

u ^ 

X ' 

w 

> 

o 

H 

O 



r\j * co w o to r~- r-» 

— I •— I LT) 



5 < 



a; 


_ 


— ■ 


ox 




00 


< 


4* 
J- 

31 




T3 
C 


U 


o 

X 


« 


c 


_L 


T 
00 


■o 
c 


<~j 



i— i •—< m o -=t en i— i 
i— i rv -a- co i— i rv i— i 

rH in in cri c\j in <d- 



I-H «tf- 



O CD O O O Ln o 



oi^mmoiON cm 



ncoiotONioo co 

CO CD CD CO CM CM LO rv 

hiclo Hojrv^ co 



CD <d" O UO O CM UO 



o o o rv o ud «a- 



rHNcomin .— i 



00 Cn LT) i— 1 LT> O0 

^■cmi/ihh un 



CO LT> 5fr O "=T 
COlDlT) m^-i 
i— i ^i- i— i cm rv 



o o o o o o 
N un CO CO cn en 



IV en q- co>* 
r — r-t^tvo^ 

CM LO CM CM f — 



i—l i—l CM LT) 



cn en cn co 

(OLflWO 
Ln un 00 



WOPltf 

CfllDr-t^l 

■=3- cn «* co 



o o o o 



co en uo un 


CO 


en o 


ro o o 


un 


un co 


CM i—l 


n 


i—i 



cn co (ji r^ 
r^ ro id c\j 



ioin ^h<^- 
rva-icco 

IV *3" ■=)■ O 


LO 

r— 


en 

CM 


un 
en 

CO 


t— i r-. cm 


^ 


co 




o o o o 


o 


o 


CD 


■—I co -a- CM 

WrtHH 


en 

i — i 


rv 


UO 



co uo o ud en 


o 


co uo >a- co 

co en i~- o 
^1- co =d- "cf 


CM 

•=3" 


cm un UO CT> 

i — co oo un 
co co cm >a- 


CO 

ro 


O UO 


N Ol m ■* "3" 
■—1 CM CM CM i-H 


o 

CM 


UO >* 
CO CO 



un uo co rv 
un co co uo 
co co «a- o 



en iv ,— t cm 
Ln en cm un 
i— i q- IV iv 



iv .-h co o o uo 



en ro =d- o co uo 



u~> o uo o •— I 



co co ^i- uo 



.-I un o *a- 



co cm en en ro 



uo uo CM 

co «a- co 
un o un 



O CM CM 



co «* cn ^3- 

UO ro i-i CD 
«3- CM ■—! 



cm en rv iv 

CO CM UO i—l 

rv o .-H oo 



o o o o 



co un en o 
iv iv uo UO 
oo i — *3- cn 



0NU30 CO 



CM CM CO CO Ln 



1 


sO 


flj ^ 


z 


ox 


< * 


o 


c 

73 




z 


c 

01 


e 


J 


a. 




< 


01 

■■r. 


c 




OS 

U 


■5 °* 

u < 


S 





s 


m* 


■J) 




X 


ox 


c „ 


u 


< 


2 if 

s < 


u. 






o 




SI 

•a .s 


C/3 




£ 1 


W 




0. 


U 






< 







o o i—i uo cm -—I un 



rt OOlOiJ 



LO en un 



CD O O CO O CD O 



ro uo un -— i <— i un .— i .— i 

o un cn i— i cm co oo en 

CM LO >-H UO CM CO <3" UO 

•— I CO l-H CM 



LncMLOcn^HOco uo 

M ^ IDM rHiHfl- i-H 

uo i-H cn 



CD o o un o 



UO IV CO CO -—I 



•— i UO CD UO 

^oenn 
uo ^f co 



O O in o 



UO IV IV CO 



cm uo cm cn 
co cm -=d- rv 

CD UO CM 



HOINO 

o co rv rv 

^-t rv CM 



O CD CD CD 



ro .—I etf- ro 



ro cn i— i CO i—i 

CM IT) «3- >3- rv 

•—< CD ro un 



C O un o 



CO CO CD i-H 

un co cm co 

•53- ,— < 



CD 


m 


•r- 


1/) 


-I 


-5 


a 


^ 


L. 


cd <u 


cr 


rr 


i= 


o 


L. 


S_ +J 


in 


•_ 



nr 3 m to « oj 
uououna 



5- 






, — 


CD 


O 




c 


1— 


c 


>^ 






(1) 




-I 


m 


+J 


i- 


C" 


rO 


■a 


S- 


i. 


(/) 


CI) 


>, 


n3 


>1 


rn 


CO 


X 


SL 


1— 


3 



Ci) CD -i— -t-' S- 

+-> > , +J <S> 4-> 

L n) E +) t- iyi 

tT3 S. it} -r- Q -^ 

C_> L_) Q_ Q- Q 



■i— un O uo 

• — ai i — o. 

ac w E 

^ o a <v 

CD) i-3 CD I/O 



3 C 

OJ CD 

2: o. 



X S- E -r- 

CD to O n3 S- 



165 







m 


^-i r*^ 




\ 


m 


en CO 


^fc. 








■A 








>s 








M 


ir 








-= 














z 




LO 


r-» c\j 


z 


3C 


r^ 


cr< a- 



i-H CM 



oo o oo 



H 
C 

u 

= - 

H „ 

Z | 

£ Q 

r-ri T3 

w J) 

< a 

u g 

5 o 

w 






Of 

< 



« < 



oo ^ UO oo 
c\j cm oo CO 

csj cm oo i — 



OlfllD 
ix UO CM 



ix CM i-h CD 

en oo oo cm 

CO «3" I— I LD 

OO «H- OO r-H 



ix co o oo 



>d- un «a- un 



noio cm 

IT) N CvJ LT) 
i-H CM 



O S .1 

oS * 



00 CD OO 

i-h oo «3- 

,-H <S" 



CJO C50 C30 
CTi CM >3- 

ix co 



oo cr> oo 

CTi IT) CM 

ID'*'* 



oo un 


CO 


i — un o 


CM 


CD 


ld uo 


I-H 


uo i — ix 


iH 


CO 



ON* UO 



o un uo un CO 
r— i o oo rx uo 

i— I CM i— I CM 



oo un CO i— i oo o 

uo co rx co un i-h 

un ix cm oo I — I — 

i— i t— i i—i cm ix 



O O CD O O 
cm ix cm CO un 



IT) CvJID N O OO 



^ 


- 


UD O CM 


cc 


CftHO 


o 


CM OO LiO CTi OO 


z 


— 


o un oo 


oo 


<-< uo o 


CC 


id tH ix id in 




- 


oo un co 


CM 


CO >* uo 


co 


ix CD ■=3- ix 00 



oaiiocn* co 



un i-H UO OO OO CTi 

,-H .-1 <3" 



— I oo 



I — ■* i— I 

cm un oo 



I-H OO CO CO 

oo un o oo 

oo o ■— i oo 

cm ^a- oo cn 



OO f— I i— I CM 



OO <H- OO ■— I 



CO CO 
OO IX 
O r-H 



o 


uo ix oo 


uo 


IX |X 


CO 


co co i — 


«* 


OO •* 


OO 


cm co un 


ix 


cn oo 



00 00 co <d- 

UO CD CM O 
CM OO ^f- O 



oo un cm o 

un *3- to uo 

tcoo OO 

i— i ■— i oo uo 



CO CO CO OO 



IDHH CO 

un cm o i — 

CO O0 UO lx 



un ix ix oo 

i-H i-H OO 



un un t-n »— i 

t-H i-l f\ =3" 



I - 



CO OO CO 

^H O CM 

HMH 



O0 CM r-H 


CM 


OO •* 


OO IX CO 


OO 


UO i-l 



«4j 01 



0* 
U 
— 

c 

< 









VO CO oo 

^ CO -h 

■3- ^]- T 



o o o un 



uo rx co un 

5jrH(Jl Un 

OO CO CO UO 

CM ■— I 



HHIO 00 

■* un oo co 
ix co oo un 



co ■* co 

OO C30 O 
OO IX 



•a- ix oo 

UlrHl 



,— I i— I ,— < r-H un 



o o o 


o 


o 


O CD 


O CD 


O 


CO UO i-h 
i-H CM OO 


o 

r-O 


UO 
CM 


CM CM 
OO OO 


CTI CD 
i-H .jC 


UO 

CM 



CO CD ix IX ■* ,-h 



uo rx un o ■* 
.-H uo co oo un 

CM i-H i-H CM 



<3- cm un 

i-H CTi CM 
CM CM CM 



i-H CM 

O O O 
OO UO CO 



CTt O UO 


UO 


o <h- 


CM CM «* 


en 


OO W) 


OO *H- OO 


o 


O i-H 



O OO I — 

uo ■=}- CO 

i-H CM CM 



O OO UO 

H/ioin 

CM OO OO 



Oi .c: <si uo 
oo un i— -r- 

T3 iC •-- O 



oo 






-^ > O CU CO -t- 1 

C C 00 O i- LO 

fl (O S. c i. •!- 

1- 1- Ol TO ro CD 

Ul_ C3 Q. > 3 



S- ^= CL) 

ro g il) 
IOj 



i— -i- o 



E -^ 
3 o 
O DZ 





u 


LO 






3 


cr 


< 


XJ 


01 


CO 


F- 


TD 


c 


3 


fD 


-1 






s_ 


o 


cm 


OJ 


U_J 



166 



CM O CM 



t— I ■— I CM 



CM O CM 



— rn 
C J. 

o ae 



CM CO LT> 



co co 


CO 


iohi — cn cn 


CM CO 


CO 


cm *3- CM i-H co 



— •* 



c/3 




a 


r^i 




H 




u 






a 




01 

U 


o 




^ 







I 


LD 


o 










u 




< 


o 


in 


H 
U 


QO 




SO 

e 




P"N 


f^ 








H 


00 


e 
■5 


ox 

< 


o 

CO 



O CO 


co 


co *3- 


CO *H- 


O 


co en 


1 — 1 


CM 


CM 



CM CO 


co 


co -=3- 


o 


r~~ co 


CM CO 


o 


<=3" *d" 


Ol 


cm r-. 


CM "3" 


f- 


[^ 1-H 


CO 


en 



I — LD 

CTl «h- 
*3- i~- 



.— I >-3- LO 

vo >—< r — 

t— I CO i — 

r~~ cm cn 



O O o 

U1H O 
i— » CM CM 



CO O 

cm cn 

i-H CM 



o o 


o 


cn CM 


in cn 


co 


IT) O 


r-- ■=*■ 


<— ' 


CO -3- 



cn cn 
cn co 

CO CM 



«*• o >3- 
co cn cn 

ro co co 



CM CM CM 



co CO i—l 
cn cn cn 
t— i p^ cn 



co r-~ 

r-H t— ) 
CO CO 



co cn t— i co cm 

CO CO i-H i-H ,-H 



CO COCOCDN r- 

HH<*rlCl CO 

co t— i co on cm q- 

i—l CO CM i—l CO CM 



ooooo 



CO Cn CTi 



w 




S 


IT, 


H 


ox 


Z 




^N 


3 


c/a 


a 


w 


T3 
CV 


< 


(/I 

o 
a. 


U 


1/1 

Q 


y 


V) 


J 


a* 

!/) 


u 




33 


c»- 

o 


w 


1/1 


> 


OX 

< 


o 


■a 
c 
a 


H 


on 


O 


=5 



— «J 

2 o 

o a. 
H .2 

a 



a .i 



ex — 

c J, 



*a- co 
o co 

CO LD 



r- •-> co 

CO CO 



CO CM 


o 


i— < i—i 


CM 


CO CM 


cn 


co cn 


5J- 


cn *a- 


CO 


i— 1 i— 1 


CM 


•=a- 00 


cn 


r-. cn 


P»« 


O r-. 


r^ 














CO CM 


i — i 


«* 


LO 


i-H CM 


CO 



i-H U0 CO 
^H CO •=*- 



.-h co <a- 



.— i cn i-i 



■=a- CO 
co co 
--I r-. 



ion co 



hid r-~ 

CO CO .— I 

CO «St CO 

.— I «* CO 



lo o cn 



co cn cn cm i-h 



CO LD i— I ld co r~- 

co co co ten *— i co 

MDOOtil O 

i— 1 CO CO CM CO *3" 



^3- cn cn cd cn 



^3" CTl •— I CM -— < 



co co co -=r co cn 



S, 


ox 


< * 


© 


■5 




z 


c 


e 

sO 


J 


a- 




< 


1/3 
V 

1/3 


c 


£ 


R 

u 


« < 


S 


<— 



s 


*m* 


1/) 




X 


ox 


S si 


u 


< 


2 if 


u- 






o 




•5.E 


ca 




£ 1 


w 




(X 


o 






< 







cn co 
■-3- cn 

i-H CM 



cm r~- 
cn co 

i-H *3" 



■=3- cn 
CO un 



o 

CO 



.— i cn 
cm o 
co co 



CM CXI 

CO CM 

CO 



o o 



CM CM 
CO CM 



^r cm 
CO >* 



•— I •— I CM 



"d- CM CM 

CO CTi CO 

.—I CM 



o o 

CO CO 



CO i— I i-H 



CD cn m 



CD 
O 



CO 
CO 

o 



cm cn 
cn cn 
cn cm 



i— I cm co 



r^ cn 
co CM 
o co 



o co co 
co co ^H 

CM ^3- C- 



O O CO CO CO 

co >3- i-h .— i un 



co cn rv i/i cn 
^j- oo «h- cn cm 

HCiJHHfy 



CD CD tn CD CD 



r-H CM CO O i-H i-H 

"3" CTl -d" ^3- CM CO 

oinLDOjvr .—I 

r-H CM ^H 



OMDNin 

roinNi — i CTi 

CM CO -H CM CO 





CO 




cn 




i— ' 


Q> 


■(-> 


U 


u 


C 




rn 


S- 


E 


+-> 


m 


cn 






< 


O 



E 
CO CD 



ro ro ■(- 



i— T- .C S- O >r- 



C C •■- 



J O '1- 



03 

_cz 
r— cn 

c C 

CD -^ 
CO CJ 

m o 
<—> cn 



■ i— oi 



■r- l/l 



ft! 1X5 c/1 

XJ 3 -r- 

t) o Q 

U cn 



0) -C CJ 

B Q. •!- 

o .— s- 

CTt O *-* 

c c •■- 

OHO 
S CtC 



o >- 

c tu E ■— c: 
o i- -c c o 

l/l O CJ 1T3 *^- 

c o -i- +- J c 

ct ^ cn IjO => 



167 



\ £ 



onincNj 



■—I (XI 



.-! ^H <3" 



r- ^i- .— i 



i — iDfnw oo 
~-< ~* a> cm 



v: 




•- r<l 


H 




w 


tt 






P 




C pit 


O 






u 




< 
e 


H 




-c 


U 




= 


■— ■ 


fl 




H 


3C 


c 

.2 u 

2 


*^ 


V 




Q 


,> 








= a. 


— 






= 


y 


2 ^ 


- 


M 


— 








z 


u 


e 5. 


»■ 


3 


r- .£ 




^ 




y: 






a 


— 




X 


s 




< 


3. 




U 






M 


V 


c 


- 


91 

y 


■' 


u 


03 




B=M 






= 


C 




a 


■r 


Q J. 


> 


< 


s 


tf 


-3 
C 


M O 


O 


ox — 
C J. 


- 




"2 — 


o 




0, 


£ 


fcj 


r^l 

r. ~ 


1 


C 


m •"" 


z 


iX 


< * 


o 


■5 





c — r^ 



« ^ 



o o o o 



c\j oci ^r ^£> 



Cn *3" <-0 i— I 

cm >g- *d- <3- 

O i— i 00 o 



fO IT) LO kO Cn 

*3" LT> Cn ro CM 

■— I rH «d" 



cd 


CM <3" CO r«- 


rH 


MNCT1N 


oc 


OrHlDrf 


O 


N^-MO 


CM 


CftOllD W 


r~ 


ro id uo CO 



O CD O O 



[^ CM Cn ^r 



cn ors in i— i 

CM .-H CO 00 -—I 

«^r r-- r^ cn en 



ro CM I— i CD UD 



CD CD r^ cm en CO 

Cn i — I «^j- CTi LO CTl 

t— I CO CM O CO .— < 

•—i CM 



CD O O O O O 



OOrHrOrnq- en 



**■ "—I cn r~- en 

CM i— < *d" CM i— I 
CM "3" CO CO ■=!- 



co >— i "^- o o oo 

<a- i-h i-h i-h r-. 



i«f <t i-i 



CM cn to r^ 
co co i — en 

i—l .—I co 



r~. ^i- r-^ 

OIN O 
LD CO «JD 



<3" i — I «^t CTl 

I — I"— CM <JD 

^O in ^- ijd 

cm cm -^r en 



o «* CD «a- 

>* cm co >sr 

LT> r-H CO o 

co co in cm 



CM 
CM 


ID 


O i-l 
O O 
CO CO 








CO 


CO 


CO .-! 


o 


o 


O CD 


o 


LT) 
CO 


O U0 
CM CM 



.-< CM 



z I 



hcvjioo en 

I-H CM -^" CO U0 

t-\ •— I CO 



■3- co co in 

CO CM LD .-I 



LI 

o 



•^ ex 



r "s ^ 



O IT) o o 



UO VX3 O 00 CO 



ICIOOO 



r^ ^a- in «a- 



ud co lt> co 
LO ko io «— < 

CM CM 



in 


<3- Kt CM 


Lf) 


^d- en co co 


en 




UD O O 


CO 


f— 1 U0 CM CTt 


CO 


•-H 


a- — i a 


o 


ro h 


LT) 



CD O O 


o o 


o 


O CD O 


o 


i— i >^- en 
ro r^ cm 


co «* 


co 


co co rM 

<3- ro ro 


co 
co 



o co cm <=}- io ie> 

IX) *JD r—( LT> r^ ^d- 

r^ uo o cm ro co 



en r^ co 
en cm cm 
>a- ^r co 



CO 



o en en 
r^ •-< CO 
co cm uo 



to 
♦J 

o 



s- 








*J 


1J 


c: 






'-> 


o 


CI 










t/) 








ro 


T ^ 


<D 


11 


4-> 


y 






■o 


W 


01 


> 


> 


1/ 






"5 


"'. 


s_ 


a 


ej 


' 1 


' . 


— 





(O 



lO 



<IJ -r- 

cu ai ^^ -^ 

r- x: .— "O 

i — (/l •*- ra 
<C < 3 ^ 



Or- f0 

O CU cn >i 

>! is) -cr ^ a) 

S- •!- u ro u 

ai "O +->+-> c 

> rv -i— ro ro 
<ZZ3> 



r— U 

r— (8 f- 

ai s s +-> 

_i<; td ra lo 

S- r- +-> -r- 

3 ro n3 CD 

CO CD CD 





c£ 


ai 


r~ 


S_ 


CM 


3 




XJ 


+J 


C 


O 


fl) 






S- 


^ 


+-> 


U 


L0 


flj 


•1— 


t. 


Q 



r— ,— S- 1- 



r- t- a ■!- 



168 









rn 


O CO LO LO Cn 


CM 


Cn Cn 


CD ld ro co r — 


cn 


LO 








A 


■* r-~ 


co 




en ro cm 


co 


o 














t-H 


CM 


CM 








































LO 






Q 


in 




















fl 


















c 




co *$■ r~*. lo co 


CM 


Ln o 


ld lo en en ro 


LO 


1 — 






o 


00 


ioh r-- ^a- 


O 


CM CM 


ro oo i-i 


■3" 


r^. 












CM 






•— 1 


r-~- 






"3! 















co 






O. 


e 


















V) 


00 


















5 


~~ 


C\J i-H t— 1 CM CO 


*3- 


CM 00 


en lo co r- co 


o 


o 








o c\j cm cn ■— i 


u-> 


>y ■-< 


LO i-H 


LO 


*d- 


en 




a 


r*i 


1-1 "-* 


ro 






1-1 


«d- 


H 




£ 














LO 

< — I 


X 




U 


o 














P 

O 








Cn CM LO LD CM 


*d- 


cn to 


LO LO CM O ^ - 




^^ 




o 


J^ 


r-HCC0<3- ID 


r- 


CO ■-< 


co i — i — r^ *d- 


o 


cn 






*e 


inn >^- CM 


«T 


< — i 




LO 


i — i 










,_^ 








CM 


u 




< 














LO 


H 
U 






o 


r>» LD CM r-~ CO 


o 


CM CO 


co co en o lo 


o 


LO 






^c 


fl-tOrtOOl 


LO 


"* Cn 


>jrv cocooi 


CM 


CM 


-<r 




o 


>sr o *d- cn t-~ 


LO 


■3" 


CO LO LO >^- CO 


o 


o 


oo 






•> » * 


*■ 




* 


* 


* 


i 






CM i— I r-* 


LO 




1 — 1 


** 


ro 


n^ 


C") 
















Cn 




00 


c 
.2 
■5 
6 


< 


OOinom 


o 


o o o o o o o 

*3" CO CM CM O ro CO 


o 

LO 


CD 


Oil/) VDON 


cn 


LO 


es 




CM CM CM CO CO 


CM 


•* ro 


CM CM CM CO CM 


CM 


CM 


M 


u 





















> 


















"5 


c 


41 

Of 

< 


«3- to lo cm lo 


CTi 


O Cn 


CM O CO O cn 


cn 

LO 


LO 


w 


r-- lo «a- r- co 


CM 


■^r 


S 




£ 


«tm^ idlt) 


lo 


r» cn 


CO LO LO C-~ CO 
CM 


CO 


LO 


H 


ex 




■a 














Z 


C 


"3 


o 


rH ID o un o 


CM 


r» i-h 


1 — CO t-H CM LO 


LO 


ro 


'Z, 





a. 


r- CO CO Ol CO 


i — i 


t-H LO 


cn co lo o lo 


o 


<3- 


*•* 


3 

Q 


H 


5 


1— 1 CM LO LO CM 


co 


1^ r-H 


oo o i — r» «d- 

CM 


CM 

LO 


LO 


en 


CO t-H CM •-< 


co 


o 
co 
ro 


w 


■o 
















en 
< 


if) 
O 

o. 


















U 


1/) 

5 


















w 


1/1 
« 






CO LO >3- *d- O 


CM 


--H o 


CO O O LO lo 


LO 


r^ 


►J 




1*1 

A 


lo no 


ro 


CM 


ro o 


LO 


•3" 
cn 


u 
















^r 


*■* 


o 


















s 

> 


>-. 
















ov 




r*S 


00i-HC0r~.cn 


CO 


LD •—< 


CO ^3" CO CM CM 


LO 


OJ 


*« 


LO r— 1 LO LO 


cn 




.— 1 .-H CM 


LO 


. — i 


ex 

< 


m 
<u 


00 




^h 








LO 


X 


T3 

C 

cs 




o 

00 














© 


OS) 

c 


"7 


co r» i— i co i~- 


lo 


f o 


O cn q- o CO 


LO 


r~~ 




oo lo cm cm 


^r 




r— t 


ro 


LO 


H 


00 


■5 

c 


fM 




1-1 








LO 





^ 




mm 


CVJ LO LO 


ro 


r^ 


ro 


1 


^o 


< 


Jb 


LD ^H 


n^ 


CM 


co 


z 


ex 


VO 








. — i 


o 


c 














z 


c 
a. 




O 


i— t LO r^. 


cn 


LO 


CO 




<o 


^r co cm 


o 


O 


LO 








CM 


>rr 




ai 


J 














< 


01 














z 


« 


a 


01 


o o o 


O 


o 


o 


U 


-a 




cn ^- q- 


cn 


r^ 


r- 




4) 


< 


cn «a- cm 


ro 


LO 


IO 


^ 


>— 

o 


5 




1-1 








(■N 


(/> 














X 


ex 


B 


0/ 


co .-h cn 


LO 


^r 


o 


u 


< 






^H «s- CO 


r^ 


M" 


r^ 


^ 


< 


lo cn co 


LO 


O 


co 








CM CM 


i — i 


i — i 


. — i 


u. 
















o 







on 

c 


















CM «3" LO 


LO 


O^ 


i — 


en 




o 




r-~ CM CM 


LO 




O 






LO l-H t-H 


LO 


CM 


r- 


w 






Cu 








^ 


O 
















< 

















cn co lo lo cn r^ cm 
cn co -^j- LO cm co 



O LO O CD O O O 



LOLOLOr^LOr^co lo 
ococoloolo*^- o 

—I t-H CO —I CM 



HWHNCOrHOl 

lo t-H lo lo cn n^ <h- 



XJ c 
c i- <v 

O i— o > 
(/i i— >*- i — 
s- ai s- >, 

CO 3 0J lo 

"O o -^ -c c 

c o i — +J (D 
CU O O 3 l_ 

^ s: o_ or i— 



O fD O LO c c 

0) n m >, u u « 
.c i — i. o n u j 
uounsiLO 



169 



RANKINGS FOR THE 34 JUDICIAL DISTRICTS BASED UPON 
PERCENT TOTAL CASELOAD DISPOSED* 

July 1, 1983 - June 30, 1984 





Judicial 




Superior Court 




Estates 


Special 
Proceedings 


District Court 




Civil 


Criminal 




Civil 


Criminal 


.'udiciil 






Non-Motor 


Division 


District 




Felonies Misdemeanors 








Vehicle 


: 


1 


23 


2Q 


17 


5 


28 


21 


27 




2 


15 


28 


24 


16 


33 


22 


1 




3 


17 


25 


10 


11 


14 


25 


24 




4 


21 


1 


12 


24 


22 


27 


10 




5 


22 


3 


4 


1 


3 


29 


14 




6 


5 


17 


18 


25 


32 


6 


8 




7 


8 


4 


3 


6 


31 


28 


25 




8 


24 


7 


11 


10 


15 


7 


19 


: : 


9 


16 


27 


32 


2 


12 


16 


7 




10 


13 


26 


25 


33 


19 


19 


31 




11 


2 


10 


8 


20 


20 


5 


6 




12 


29 


20 


9 


3 


6 


26 


22 




13 


30 


15 


7 


19 


30 


23 


15 




14 


11 


21 


26 


31 


2 


31 


28 




15A 


33 


31 


14 


15 


18 


1 


16 




15B 


7 


11 


15 


27 


34 


33 


17 




16 


26 


9 


23 


13 


16 


14 


3 


::: 


17A 


3 


2 


2 


18 


23 


3 


2 




17B 


9 


6 


5 


8 


13 


10 


4 




18 


34 


23 


31 


12 


4 


13 


34 




19A 


14 


14 


19 


14 


10 


24 


26 




19B 


31 


33 


27 


7 


9 


18 


11 




20 


27 


13 


13 


22 


25 


32 


8 




21 


12 


5 


1 


17 


1 


12 


12 




22 


6 


22 


6 


9 


6 


9 


23 




23 


20 


32 


28 


21 


18 


2 


13 


: . 


24 


19 


34 


34 


34 


26 


20 


33 




25 


10 


18 


20 


29 


11 


17 


20 




26 


28 


24 


30 


23 


27 


8 


32 




27A 


1 


8 


21 


26 


8 


11 


29 




27B 


18 


12 


33 


4 


5 


15 


5 




28 


4 


19 


16 


30 


29 


4 


18 




29 


25 


16 


22 


28 


21 


30 


30 




30 


32 


30 


29 


32 


24 


34 


21 



•Total Caseload = Cases pending on July 1 , 1 983 + new cases filed during the 1983-84 fiscal year. A rank of I indicates the highest percentage of total 
caseload disposed; a rank of 34 indicates the lowest percentage of total caseload disposed. 



170 



RANKINGS FOR THE 100 COUNTIES BASED UPON 
PERCENT TOTAL CASELOAD DISPOSED* 

July 1, 1983 — June 30, 1984 









Superior Court 




Estates 


Special 
Proceedings 


District Court 




Civil 


Criminal 


Civil 


Criminal 


Judicial 






Non-Motor 


District 


County 




Felonies 


Misdemeanors 








Vehicle 


1 


Camden 


99 


92 


87 


36 


73 


62 


46 




Chowan 


97 


91 


44 


86 


94 


59 


14 




Currituck 


18 


12 


13 


59 


26 


26 


4 3 




Dare 


96 


30 


48 


1 


81 


67 


99 




Gates 


41 


77 


86 


3 


71 


40 


4 




Pasquotank 


20 


74 


28 


45 


39 


51 


9 




Perquimans 


14 


97 


89 


96 


90 


72 


3? 


2 


Beaufort 


51 


84 


63 


22 


100 


70 


13 




Hyde 


34 


32 


8 


30 


65 


93 


8 




Martin 


32 


41 


98 


79 


96 


57 


16 




Tyrrel 1 


66 


35 


3 


84 


52 


7 


1 




Washington 


54 


66 


74 


29 


12 


2 


2 


3 


Carteret 


61 


78 


31 


6 


33 


85 


92 




Craven 


59 


45 


14 


75 


49 


71 


60 




Pamlico 


86 


36 


75 


8 


87 


95 


28 




Pitt 


49 


68 


43 


34 


27 


49 


76 


4 


Dupl in 


42 


26 


25 


66 


68 


45 


5 




Jones 


87 


3 


21 


63 


97 


89 


53 




Onslow 


77 


11 


61 


71 


47 


90 


52 




Sampson 


33 


4 


1 


50 


56 


15 


58 


5 


New Hanover 


55 


20 


16 


2 


3 


81 


61 




Pender 


90 


22 


15 


65 


82 


86 


30 


6 


Bertie 


4 


19 


60 


62 


69 


20 


12 




Halifax 


39 


43 


41 


90 


98 


36 


48 




Hertford 


8 


27 


52 


11 


77 


32 


20 




Northampton 


22 


87 


88 


31 


61 


5 


24 


7 


Edgecombe 


7 


17 


18 


4 


75 


91 


71 




Nash 


43 


9 


7 


25 


76 


75 


73 




Wilson 


37 


34 


27 


52 


86 


83 


89 


8 


Greene 


16 


88 


81 


19 


74 


4 


11 




Lenoir 


53 


21 


23 


9 


19 


28 


49 




Wayne 


76 


18 


36 


48 


44 


31 


80 


9 


Frankl in 


38 


90 


85 


20 


89 


54 


54 




Granville 


28 


75 


80 


5 


1 


64 


22 




Person 


57 


42 


91 


13 


57 


48 


57 




Vance 


45 


51 


57 


16 


5 


47 


21 




Warren 


91 


71 


84 


7 


66 


1 


10 


10 


Wake 


40 


64 


70 


91 


50 


52 


88 


11 


Harnett 


9 


8 


4 


46 


60 


18 


37 




Johnston 


5 


39 


30 


28 


15 


19 


27 




Lee 


10 


47 


45 


93 


92 


39 


33 


12 


Cumberland 


73 


48 


34 


17 


13 


74 


77 




Hoke 


44 


7 


19 


54 


37 


14 


47 


13 


Bladen 


46 


86 


49 


14 


21 


12 


62 




Brunswick 


62 


73 


73 


42 


41 


78 


79 




Columbus 


81 


6 


9 


78 


95 


41 


34 


14 


Durham 


35 


55 


68 


81 


8 


84 


35 


15A 


Alamance 


89 


80 


37 


44 


45 


11 


56 


15B 


Chatham 


31 


76 


64 


64 


84 


87 


40 




Orange 


15 


25 


24 


77 


99 


97 


66 


16 


Robeson 


71 


16 


39 


26 


23 


46 


15 




Scotland 


52 


72 


90 


67 


79 


22 


41 



*Total Caseload = Cases pending on July 1, 1983 + new cases filed during the 1983-84 year. A rank of 1 indicates 
the highest percentage of total caseload disposed; a rank of 100 indicates the lowest percentage of total 
caseload disposed. 



171 



RANKINGS FOR THE 100 COUNTIES BASED UPON 
PERCENT TOTAL CASELOAD DISPOSED* 

July 1, 1983 - June 30, 1984 









Superior Court 




Estates 


Special 
Proceedings 


District Court 




Civil 


Criminal 


Civil 


Criminal 


JudlcitJ 






Non-Motor 


District 


County 




Felonies 


Misdemeanors 








Vehicle 


r- 


Caswell 


1 


2 


2 


35 


31 


42 


7 




Rockingham 


12 


24 


12 


56 


64 


16 


17 


17B 


Stokes 


80 


5 


50 


23 


25 


50 


18 




Surry 


23 


40 


11 


33 


38 


25 


26 


18 


Guilford 


94 


61 


78 


38 


11 


38 


94 


19A 


Cabarrus 


58 


49 


69 


47 


43 


68 


96 




Rowan 


26 


31 


29 


39 


14 


63 


29 


L9B 


Montgomery 


100 


98 


54 


41 


48 


94 


69 




Randolph 


72 


82 


83 


24 


10 


21 


35 


20 


Anson 


48 


37 


94 


99 


91 


27 


64 




ftoore 


30 


10 


17 


57 


32 


79 


36 




Richmond 


95 


57 


10 


73 


93 


100 


6 




Stanly 


84 


14 


22 


32 


83 


82 


38 




Union 


69 


69 


26 


10 


7 


76 


45 


'21 


Forsyth 


36 


23 


5 


53 


2 


37 


51 


2: 


Alexander 


17 


67 


6 


15 


30 


34 


44 




Davidson 


11 


50 


20 


21 


4 


6 


75 




Davie 


27 


65 


51 


12 


46 


96 


55 




Iredel 1 


29 


59 


35 


51 


16 


33 


82 


23 


Alleghany 


2 


99 


77 


68 


24 


17 


3 




Ashe 


47 


96 


97 


43 


40 


13 


23 




Wilkes 


75 


63 


76 


74 


53 


8 


50 




Yadkin 


60 


95 


53 


55 


36 


44 


87 


24 


Avery 


19 


70 


65 


69 


85 


73 


100 




Madison 


92 


83 


99 


60 


88 


58 


98 




Mitchell 


63 


85 


58 


100 


42 


9 


78 




Watauga 


3 


94 


100 


82 


63 


53 


70 




Yancey 


78 


100 


40 


89 


35 


56 


81 


25 


Burke 


68 


33 


72 


72 


22 


24 


68 




Caldwell 


21 


54 


55 


85 


28 


61 


67 




Catawba 


25 


44 


46 


76 


20 


60 


72 


26 


Mecklenburg 


70 


62 


79 


61 


70 


30 


91 


27A 


Gaston 


6 


28 


59 


70 


17 


35 


86 


27B 


Cleveland 


50 


53 


71 


18 


9 


65 


25 




Lincoln 


74 


13 


92 


27 


18 


3 


39 


2% 


Buncombe 


13 


46 


42 


80 


72 


23 


65 


29 


Henderson 


65 


60 


95 


58 


34 


99 


84 




McDowell 


79 


15 


38 


92 


29 


55 


31 




Polk 


24 


38 


62 


87 


6 


10 


93 




Rutherford 


56 


29 


47 


40 


78 


69 


97 




Transylvania 


64 


56 


56 


94 


67 


80 


83 


r, 


Cherokee 


85 


89 


33 


97 


59 


92 


90 




Clay 


88 


1 


67 


37 


51 


29 


19 




Graham 


67 


93 


96 


98 


58 


66 


74 




Haywood 


93 


79 


93 


49 


54 


77 


59 




Jackson 


83 


81 


32 


88 


80 


43 


63 




Macon 


82 


52 


66 


95 


62 


88 


95 




Swa in 


98 


58 


82 


83 


55 


98 


42 



'Total Caseload = Cases pending on July 1, 1983 + new cases filed during the 1983-84 year. A rank of 1 indicates 
the highest percentage of total caseload disposed; a rank of 100 indicates the lowest percentage of total 
caseload disposed. 



172 



S'A'E - 5PAR> OF NORTH CAROLINA 



3 3091 00748 2656 



STATE LIBRARY OF NORTH CAROLINA 



n 3 3091 00653 9555 r 




'KINTtolNo.t.*.